Did Rudolf Steiner Name the Bard, 100 Years Ago? · Mark Rylance lecturing on John Dee’s Monas o ... John Wilmot, or Egon Schiele, poor fellow, who inherited the disease from his

Summer 2012 page 1Shakespeare Matters

12:1 Winter 2013“Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments...”

2012 Shakespearean Authorship Trust Conference Report

by Earl Showerman

In May I received a most welcome invitation to the annual Shakespearean Authorship Trust (SAT) Conference in London. Oxfordian Julia Cleave, who is a trustee of the SAT, wrote to

ask if I would make a presentation at the conference, which is held each November at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. The theme of this year’s conference was “Shakespeare and the Mysteries,” a subject to which advocates of all the leading authorship candidates proved capable of making valuable contributions that directly challenge Stratfordian orthodoxy.

Cleave asked a most intriguing question. “What are the implications for the authorship question of Shakespeare’s profound knowledge of Renaissance Neoplatonic and Hermetic traditions? These are present not only in pointed allusions to alchemy, astrology and magic, to Paracelsian medicine, the Platonic ascent of the soul, and the Music of the Spheres, but also in the initiatic patterns of transformation and rebirth which inform the deep structure of his dramas. Clearly there is great scope for putting the Oxfordian case in this context.”

Cleave, Peter Dawkins, author of The Shakespeare Enigma (2004), and SAT Chair Mark Rylance organized the program.

(Continued on page 8)

Did Rudolf Steiner Name the Bard, 100 Years Ago?

by Alan Stott

Accompanying the general insecurity around us, there is a considerable interest in the beginnings of modern times. What happened 400–500 years ago in the birth struggles

of emerging Europe? Novels, studies, TV programs and films explore the events surrounding the throne of England. Several acclaimed films aim to capture the life and “glorious reign” of Elizabeth (1533-1603). Our picture of “merrie olde England” and the relative calm of Elizabeth’s reign, however, has to be modified by the lasting impact of her father, the tyrant Henry VIII, together with the intrigues and quarrels amongst the aristocracy, religious persecutions, the realities of a police state, rigorous censorship, and more. But, we comfort ourselves, the age did produce Shake-speare. Of that, at least, we can be proud.


A Source for “Remembrance of Things Past”

in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 30by Richard M. Waugaman, M.D1

Sonnet 30 begins, “When to the sessions of sweet silent thought/ I summon up remembrance1 of things past...” What exactly were these things past that are being remembered?

As with many interpretive cruxes in Shakespeare’s works, knowing the context of his biblical and other literary allusions often pro-vides the key for unlocking the answer. Colin Burrow2 noted the continuity with Sonnet 29, which begins “When in disgrace with Fortune and men’s eyes. Helen Vendler3 commended Shakespeare’s “tour de force” of constructing in Sonnet 30 ‘”a richly historical present-and-preterite-and-pluperfect-[‘multilayered’]-self [who]-- for the sake of an enlivened emotional selfhood—calls up the griefs of the past” (165). But Vendler and other commentators


Mark Rylance lecturing on John Dee’s Monas ��o��o��ca at the 2012 SAT meetings (see p. 8).

page 2 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2013

L�tt��s

Shakespeare MattersPublished quarterly by the

The Shakespeare Fellowship Please address correspondence to:

Editorial Offices:P.O. Box 66083

Auburndale, MA 02466

Editor:Alex McNeil

Design Editor:Roger Stritmatter

Contributing Editors: Mark Anderson, Lynne Kositsky, Howard

Schumann, Dr. Felicia Londre,

William Boyle, Richard Whalen.

Phone (Auburndale, MA): (617) 244-9825email: [email protected]

All contents copyright ©2013

Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are $50 per year ($25 for online issues only). Family

or institution subscriptions are $75 per year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $100 and up. Please send subscription requests to:

The Shakespeare FellowshipP.O. Box 66083

Auburndale, MA, 02466

The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship is to promote public awareness and acceptance of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and further to encourage a high level of schol-arly research and publication into all aspects of

Shakespeare studies, and also into the history and culture of the Elizabethan era.

The Society was founded and incorporated in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is

chartered under the membership corporation laws of that state. It is a recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit

(Fed ID 04-3578550). Dues, grants and contributions are tax-de-ductible to the extent allowed by law.

Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, commentary, book reviews, letters and news items.

Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed

by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the Fellowship as a literary and educational organization.

To the Editor:

I read with great interest Earl Showerman’s article on Shakespeare’s knowledge of medicine in your Summer 2012 issue. Since much of it touches on chapters in the book I’m writing on Oxford’s education, I’m very grateful for several important points he mentions that otherwise I might have missed. In the same spirit, he and others might welcome some points from my own studies.

Dr. Showerman notes Shakespeare’s many references to syphilis. Unfortunately, some see this as a suggestion that the author himself suffered from this terrible disease. That this is unlikely is a matter of common sense; those artists who we know died from syphilis (Baudelaire, Lautrec, Gauguin, Delius) show a very different attitude towards life (or they died very young, like Franz Schubert, John Wilmot, or Egon Schiele, poor fellow, who inherited the disease from his father). We would have a great many more names from before the discovery of penicillin if historians weren’t so dainty or the disease so shameful.

As Dr. Showerman notes, Shakespeare uses syphilis imagery as a metaphor for the spiritual and moral illness of society. That syphilis would be the most likely choice as a metaphor for a diseased society in Shakespeare’s time, irrespective of the author’s own health, seems clear from its history. In fact, it seems clear to me that the Reformation acquired its repressive, anti-sex, anti-poetry attitudes, the rage with which it destroyed the artwork in the churches and cathedrals (none of this in any way based on original Reformation tenets) from what was by then a universal dread of syphilis, which had struck Europe with a previously unknown force towards the end of the fifteenth century, and which influential reformers like John Calvin and John Knox doubtless took as God’s vengeance on human sensuality.

Though few historians will admit it,

it seems clear from the facts that syphilis was the real reason for the increasing physical decay and insanity of Henry VIII, and for the horrible early death of his son, the sterility of his oldest daughter, and the many stillbirths of his later wives. Certainly Oxford and all the leading members of the Court community would have been aware of the real reason for the horrors of the latter half of the Henrician reign, as would all the Courts of Europe, enlightened by their ambassadors. We may be unaware of the symptoms and long-term effects of syphilis today, but you can be assured that sixteenth-century Europeans were not so ignorant. In my view, fear of what possibly having inherited the disease might do to her and her offspring should she get pregnant had more to do with Elizabeth’s refusal to marry than any other factor (except the likelihood that she would lose some or all of her political power to her husband). Those interested in more reasons for this can enter a keyword in the search field at the top right corner of the homepage on my blog: www.politicworm.com.

If Shakespeare suffered from some chronic disease it’s far more likely that it was malaria, partly based on his metaphorical use of terms like “freeze and fry,” references to the Ague (another name for malaria), and the fact that Oxford had spent his childhood in close proximity to a very large wetland where in his time the anopheles mosquito must have bred in warm, wet weather. According to experts, such areas in England were rife with malaria at this time, as were many other low-lying areas of Europe. As with syphilis, there would be no cure until the discovery of quinine.

It seems clear that Oxford was in poor health towards the end of his life, but there’s nothing to suggest that it was syphilis. Although malaria, once contracted, will continue to erupt periodically from then on, it seems it generally eases in later life. Also, we have to keep in mind that Oxford’s complaints of poor health could simply be his way of avoiding the duties incumbent on an earl. Poor health was the only excuse the Queen would allow. A


page 3Shakespeare MattersWinter 2013

F�om t�� Ed�to�

Shakespeare in Prison

One of my neighbors retired a few years ago and, like many retirees, finds himself a busy man as a

result of all the volunteer work he does. The activity that he finds most rewarding is leading a book club that he founded in 2004. This book club is a special one, as it’s conducted at a medium security prison here in Massachusetts (for security reasons, my neighbor asks that I not use his name or identify the institution).

The Club meets Monday afternoons throughout the year in a small activity room at the prison. About fourteen men are regular members; all are serving lengthy sentences for a variety of offenses. Membership is entirely voluntary -- none of them receives any credit toward their sentence for participating in the Group. Collectively, they choose the works they’ll read each year, and they select a wide range of works – contemporary fiction, non-fiction, poetry, and the classics have all been read.

Most years they’ve chosen a Shake-speare play, and that’s where I’ve gotten involved. For the past three years, I’ve accompanied my neighbor on a Monday afternoon to discuss Shakespeare. The first time I presented a brief outline of the Au-thorship Question – sort of a boiled-down version of the “Who Was Shakespeare?” PowerPoint presentation I’ve given at our conferences and at local libraries. We also discussed Hamlet, which they had read.

The following year King Lear was the topic. We discussed some of the similarities between the play and Oxford’s own life.

Last year the Group watched the movie Anonymous, and had chosen to read The Merchant of Venice. Rather than talking about the play in general, or its themes of law versus equity, I chose to discuss how a multitude of details in the play (many of which we overlook as we read it) strongly suggest that the author had firsthand knowledge of Venice, and could

not have gathered such knowledge from secondhand reports from other writers or travelers. I took a copy of Richard Roe’s book, The Shakespeare Guide to Italy, with me, and passed it around.

The Book Club has developed an interesting approach to understanding Shakespeare. First, they watch a DVD of the play. The next two weeks they read the play aloud, with my neighbor assigning parts to each participant. They finish by

watching a second DVD of the same play, if one is available.

This year, at my suggestion, we’re going to tackle the Sonnets. I thought it would be interesting for the men to get into Shakespeare’s poetry for a change, rather than reading another play. Time won’t permit us to read and discuss all 154 sonnets, so I’ve chosen about twenty that I think are representative, which my neighbor will distribute ahead of time to-gether with some background information (hopefully an edition of all the Sonnets will be available in case anyone wants to read further). I plan to discuss the major theories about the Sonnets, and we’ll read some of them aloud. I’ll let them decide which theory of the Sonnets they find most appealing.

The men in the Book Club know I’m an Oxfordian. I can’t say I’ve made Oxfordians of all of them, but I do think I’ve convinced them that there is indeed an Authorship Question. As one of the men recently wrote, “In twelfth grade high school English we spent the year reading Shakespeare and memorizing and reciting part of it. ‘Out, out, brief candle, life’s but a wandering shadow. . . .’ Later in the year we visited England, and the Shakespeare tourist sites. With Alex’s talks and pre-sentations, I’m beginning to question and doubt my twelfth grade curriculum and all this is ‘Shakespeare.’ Was he really the playwright?” Another wrote, “Presenting Shakespeare in a concise understandable manner, he’s made an Oxfordian out of me.” A third one aptly put it in verse:

Tho I stand firmly in the camp of the WillIt is not improbable Oxford’s Earl fostered

the bill.

Last year the Group watched

the movie Anon�mous, and

had chosen to read T�� M��

c�ant of V�n�c�. Rather

than talking about the play

in general, or its themes of

law versus equity, I chose to

discuss how a multitude of

details in the play (many of

which we overlook as we read

it) strongly suggest that the

author had firsthand knowl-

edge of Venice, and could not

have gathered such knowledge

from secondhand reports from

other writers or travelers. I

took a copy of Richard Roe’s

book, T�� S�ak�s��a�� Gu�d�

to Ita��, with me, and passed

it around.



Sometimes you will hear people (usually Stratfordians) say that it doesn’t matter who wrote Shakespeare’s works be-cause we can still appreciate the plays and poetry without

knowing anything about the author. In our Summer 2012 issue, we countered that view by running a delightful article, “O-philia,” by high school student Leda Zakarison, who never really “got” Shakespeare before she learned about the Oxfordian theory of authorship. Understanding that the plays arose out of a person’s real struggles and inner torments adds a whole new dimension to them.

I know of a similar story. It starts with my friend Brad, whom I met when we studied at Columbia Law School. Brad works for the Department of Justice in D.C. He was already interested in Shakespeare, and I got him interested in the authorship question and the Oxfordian theory. He attended our authorship conference in D.C. in 2011. He read Mark Anderson’s Shakespeare by Another Name and was starting to see the logic of the Oxfordian perspective. The only problem was that he couldn’t get his girlfriend, Chelsea, interested in Shakespeare’s plays. Then, fortunately, he took her to see the film Anonymous, and everything changed. Not only did Chelsea become interested in Shakespeare’s plays, but she and Brad embarked on a perilous adventure into the unknown, which they called, “Shakespeare in a Year.” The goal: to attend a live production of each and every one of Shakespeare’s 37 plays within a one-year period! Yes, I daresay even most committed Shakespeareans, such as those reading this article (and the person writing it), have never accomplished such a feat.

Brad and Chelsea traveled up and down the east coast (mostly) in search of productions of obscure Shakespeare plays like Pericles and Two Gentlemen of Verona, as well as blockbusters like Hamlet

and Lear. They even cre-ated a blog document-ing their travels (http://chelsealbrink.blogspot.com/2011/12/hello.html), which you are most welcome to visit. They saw professional productions, communi-ty theater productions, college productions, high school produc-tions—just as long as it was live theatre. Some productions were won-derful, some not so great. But, ah well, those are the chances you take when you go to see live

Shakespeare. They saw a

production of Cori-olanus in New York City performed by a company called “Shakespeare in the Park . . . ing Lot.” As Chelsea said in the blog, “It truly was in a working parking lot. Multiple times during the produc-tion cars parked directly behind the stage.” They saw Timon of Athens at “Shakespeare in the Barn” in Dover, Pennsylvania.

In their blog entries, Brad and Chelsea grade each production, summarize the plot in their own inimitable way, and provide pictures of the productions and of themselves attending the shows. As an aside, they also share their Oscar predictions (Chelsea) and baseball predictions (Brad), as well as pictures of cute puppies and, oc-casionally, giant bunnies. All in all, their blog is undoubtedly the best Shakespeare-Oxford-Oscars-baseball-puppy-giant-bunny blog in cyberspace.

Now you’re probably wondering if Brad and Chelsea met their goal of seeing all 37 plays in a year. Well, yes, they did, but maybe with an asterisk. They had planned to see the Henry VI trilogy in November in New York City. But two weeks before the production dates, cruel fate intervened when the company moved the show to the spring! Unable to find another production of Henry VI on such short notice, Brad and Chelsea wisely bent the rule and settled for a videotaped production that they could watch on the internet. But they treated it like a live theater event, dressing nicely and going out to dinner beforehand. They even had their dog take tickets as they entered the “theatre.”

Oh, yes, in passing I should also mention that they got married during all this. I attended their wedding in Bethesda last September. It was delightful! The reception took place in an amusement park (located on Oxford Road—no kidding!), and the guests got free carousel rides! As Brad and Chelsea say in their blog, “Shakespeare was our main priority, but in the downtime we did plan and execute a wedding.” I give Brad and Chelsea an “A+” for Shakespeare in a Year, congratulations on getting mar-ried, and thanks for showing what a little taste of the authorship question can inspire! — Tom Regnier

F�om t�� P��s�d�nt:“Shakespeare in a Year”: Why It Matters Who Wrote the Works


From a Never Writer to an Ever Reader: News...

Stanley Wells Acknowledges Oxfordian Scholarship

Professor Daniel Wright, director of the Shakespeare Author-ship Research Centre at Concordia University, has noted that the work of one of his former students has been prominently cited by Professor Stanley Wells, head of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (a staunchly Stratfordian organization if ever there was one). Andy Werth’s Concordia Authorship Studies Conference paper on Shakespeare’s use of untranslated Greek sources was subsequently published in the 2002 issue of the Oxfordian.

In a speech at the 2012 World Shakespeare Congress, Wells cited Werth, identifying him as an Oxfordian, and stated that Werth had made a “strong” case for Shakespeare’s use of original Greek source material.

Unwilling, of course, to fold his tent and admit that he spent a lifetime backing the wrong man as the real Shakespeare, Wells qualified his statement by adding that Greek may have been taught at the Stratford grammar school, or that some unknown collaborator may be responsible for importing the Greek source material into the Shakespeare canon.

Professor Wright added that “Maybe what’s most surprising is the revelation that Stanley Wells reads academic Oxfordian research. . . .” Hmmm. Don’t tell anyone at Wikipedia.

Oxfordian Actor Newcomb Stars as Bottom

In other news from Oregon, James Newcomb recently fin-ished performing the role of Nick Bottom in the Portland Center Stage (PCS) production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, which received rave reviews and was directed by Penny Metropolis, who, for many years, was a resident director at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) in Ashland. Newcomb was joined by OSF veterans Linda Alper as Petra Quince and Michael Hume as Robin Starvling among a group of rude mechanicals doubling as Titania’s fairies who burlesqued outrageously to the delight of the audience.

Newcomb brilliantly performed the title role in Richard III at OSF in 2005, the year of the first Joint Conference of the Shake-speare Fellowship and Shakespeare Oxford Society in Ashland. He has been an Oxfordian since reading Charlton Ogburn’s The Mysterious William Shakespeare and has even debated the author-ship question at an OSF-sponsored event. In 2006 he received an award for artistic excellence and delivered the keynote address at the Joint Conference in Ann Arbor. At the 2010 Joint Conference in Ashland, Newcomb joined Chris Coleman, artistic director of PCS, and OSF veterans Paul Nicholson and Christopher DuVal in a public signing of the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.

Newcomb’s biography in the PCS program leaves no doubt about his Shakespearean credentials or his position on the au-thorship question: “James Newcomb recently played Apemantus

opposite Ian McDonald in Timon of Athens (Chicago Shakespeare Theatre). James spent 14 seasons with OSF, seven with Denver Center Theatre, two with Utah Shakespeare Festival, three with Shakespeare & Company (founding member) and four with Shakespeare Santa Cruz. His Shakespeare roles include Richard III, Iago, Coriolanus, Feste, Touchstone, Bolingbroke, Dogberry, and many others. He has directed AMND (The Old Globe, San Diego) and served as fight director at a number of festivals. He is an adjunct professor for the UC San Diego Department of Theatre and Dance. Awards include a Drama Logue Award and Denver Theatre Critics Award. He is an avowed Oxfordian. Ever De Vere!!!”

Newcomb is next headed to the Goodman Theatre in Chicago, where he will perform the role of the Duke in Measure for Measure. His bold Oxfordian colors certainly deserves kudos, and in no way seems to have diminished the robustness of his theatrical career.

Showerman Teaches Authorship Courses Since 2009, Shakespeare Fellowship trustee Earl Showerman

has taught a course on the Shakespeare authorship challenge each spring at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) of Southern Oregon University (SOU). These “State of the Debate”

Fellowship member and OSF regular James Newcomb playing Bottom at PCS.

(Continued on p. 6)


classes usually attract 25-30 students, and the topics covered feature current publica-tions and projects in authorship studies. Each student receives a detailed syllabus with a bibliography of Shakespeare author-ship publications and internet resources. The classes begin with a consideration of the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt and incorporate video programs, including Roland Emmerich’s Anonymous, Keir Cutler’s adaptation of Mark Twain’s sat-ire, Is Shakespeare Dead? and portions of Al Austin’s “The Mysterious William Shakespeare,” which first aired on PBS’s Frontline nearly 25 years ago.

A review of recent publications on all alternative candidates is included, along with a critique of James Shapiro’s Contested Will. Subjects covered in the past years have included the relevance of untranslated Greek dramatic sources in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Macbeth, Timon of Athens, Much Ado About Nothing and The Winter’s Tale. Shakespeare’s Italy was the primary topic of several sessions, includ-ing a detailed review of Richard Roe’s The Shakespeare Guide to Italy. Other Italy-connected topics have included identify-ing untranslated Italian literary sources, topicalities, and recognizing the author’s intimate knowledge of Venice. The intrigu-ing case for the Venetian Marrano Gaspar Ribeiro as the model for Shakespeare’s Shylock was presented in a discussion of The Merchant of Venice.

Shakespeare’s use of political allegory usually enters the discussion, starting with the well-established case for Lord Burghley being parodied as Polonius in Hamlet, and including the possible relevance of Lilian Winstanley’s 1921 study, Hamlet and the Scottish Succession. Shakespeare’s satire on the farcical romance between the Duke of Alencon and Queen Elizabeth as Bot-tom and Titania in A Midsummer Night’s Dream was also presented as evidence of unprecedented authorial liberty. This past year the class also reviewed the evidence for Shakespeare’s remarkable medical knowledge.

The De Vere Society publication, Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: A Critical Review of the Evidence and Katherine Chiljan’s catalog of “too early” allusions in Shakespeare Suppressed have both been

helpful in challenging the traditional dat-ing for a number of plays. The Prince Tudor narrative has also been discussed. Actors from the Oregon Shakespeare Festival have presented to the group. This spring the class will be assigned Steven McClarran’s book, I Come to Bury Shaksper (2011).

The retired professionals and literary buffs at OLLI at SOU make great authorship students because they are curious and open minded. OLLI staff were even instrumental in arranging a venue for screening Last Will. & Testament in October. Although only a minority of OLLI students have previously been schooled on the authorship question, they are avid Shakespeare fans and eager to learn more about Renaissance history and the parameters of literary at-tribution. Converts at any age are welcome!

Reading Shakespeare Is Good for Your Brain

In January several newspapers re-ported on a study that showed that reading literary works by Shakespeare and other noted writers is actually good for the hu-man brain. The study was conducted at Liverpool University by a team of scientists, psychologists and English department academics. They monitored the brain activity of subjects while they read works by Shakespeare, William Wordsworth, T.S. Eliot and others. Among their findings were that brain activity “lit up” when the subjects read passages that contained new or difficult words or an unusual syntactical structure.

When subjects read the same material translated into more simplified literary form, there was less brain activity. In particular, researchers found that reading poetry tended to stimulate activity in the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of “autobiographical memory,” and that this stimulation assisted readers in reflecting on their own experiences in light of what they had read. Hmmm...and we thought autobiography was invented by the Ro-mantics in 1795.

Professor Philip Davis said that “Seri-ous literature acts like a rocket-booster to the brain. The research show the power of literature to shift mental pathways, to

create new thoughts, shapes and connec-tions in the young and the staid alike.” Among the Shakespeare works that were used in the study were King Lear, Othello, Coriolanus and Macbeth.

Researchers found that when subjects encountered an unfamiliar word or phrase, the “peak” of electrochemical activity cre-ated by that encounter was sustained as the subject continued with the reading, suggesting that the triggering word had primed the reader “for more attention.” Speaking specifically about poetry, Profes-sor Davis added, “Poetry is not just a matter of style. It is a matter of deep versions of human experience that add the emotional and biographical to the cognitive.”

Oxfordian Music Collection Released

Navona Records has released the first in a series of CDs featuring music based on Shakespeare texts. Shakespeare’s Memory is the first offering in Navona’s The Shakespeare Concerts Series. A salma-gundi of selections from composer Joseph Summer’s The Oxford Songs, this album includes previously unreleased record-ings spanning the life of the series. This first volume includes Summer’s original chamber and vocal compositions set to Shakespeare’s dramas and sonnets and the poetry of Milton and Yeats, performed by a slew of musicians.

Shakespeare’s Memory unapologeti-cally defines Oxford as the bard, beginning with the cover featuring a face reflecting - in the eyes - the portrait of Edward de Vere. Material contained within the enhanced CD contents continues to highlight the bard’s ipseity, including the title work, which is a string quartet movement based on the theme from William Byrd’s Oxford March (also included on the CD). By the way, the quartet The Garden Of Forking Paths, from which the move-ment Shakespeare’s Memory is extracted, is available in its entirety on a different label (Albany Records), also containing extensive program notes explaining de Vere’s authorship. The production fea-tures the Kalmia String Quartet, Chad Sloan, baritone; Andrea Chenoweth, Ma-ria Ferrante, sopranos; Kellie Van Horn, mezzo-soprano; Justin Vickers, tenor;

(News, cont. from p. 5)


Miroslav Sekera, piano; Ian Watson, piano, harpsichord; and Lydie Härtelovä, harp. For other Oxfordian Shakespeare Concert CDs go to http://www.shakespeareconcerts.com/

Shakespeare on iPad

Cambridge University Press has announced the availability of the first two iPad apps in their planned “Explore Shakespeare” series, which are “aimed at the casual reader” and include time lines, graphs, “interactive word clouds” and so on, with well-known actors such as Kate Beckinsale. The first two plays offered in the series are Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth. Each app is priced at £ 9.99.

Agenda Set for 17th Annual SASC

The 17th annual Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference will

take place on the campus of Concordia University in Portland, Oregon, from April 11 to 14, 2013. The conference will open at 6 PM on Thursday, April 11, and close at 5 PM on Sunday, April 14.

The annual Vero Nihil Verius Award for Distinguished Achievement in the

Shakespearean Arts will be presented to John Orloff, Oxfordian screenwriter for the acclaimed Roland Emmerich-directed film, Anonymous. Emmerich himself received the same award in 2011 following the world premiere of Anonymous at this conference.

The conference will also present its annual Vero Nihil Verius Award for Distinguished Shakespearean Scholarship to author and editor Ramon Jimenez of Berkeley, California, and to James A. Warren, Regional Director for Southeast Asia for the Institute of International Education, who most recently has edited the Index to Oxfordian Publications, a compilation, for the first time, of every Oxfordian article to have appeared in print in SAQ publications over the past 90 years.

In addition to Orloff, Jimenez and Warren, an array of conference speakers of various views and convictions will include, among others, Professor Michael Delahoyde of Washington State University; Professor Alan H. Nelson of UC-

Berkeley; Professor Roger Stritmatter of Coppin State University; author Katherine Chiljan of San Francisco; independent scholar Ian Haste of Mission, British Columbia; psychiatrist Dr Jan Scheffer of Utrecht, the Netherlands; independent scholar Will iam Ray of Willits, California; NESOL librarian and editor William Boyle of Boston; actor and author Hank Whittemore of Upper Nyack, New York; author Richard Whalen of

Truro, Massachusetts; and Professor Daniel Wright, Director of the Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre at Concordia University.

The conference will also feature a showing of the Ralph Fiennes-directed tragedy of Coriolanus that will be followed

by a panel discussion of the film and the exploration of some possible purposes behind the composition of the Shakespeare play on which Fiennes' film was based.

Registration is $250. Checks may be made out to the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference and mailed to the attention of Dr. Daniel Wright, Concordia University, 2811 NE Holman Street, Portland, OR 97211-6099. Online registration, via VISA or MasterCard can be accomplished at the SARC website: www.authorshipstudies.org.

Fellowship Member Dorna Bewley in TLS

[We recently became aware that on June 2, 2001, Fellowship member Dorna Bewley had published in the Times Literary Supplement this excellent letter regarding the chronology of Hamlet, and thought it would still be of interest to our readers – editors].

Sir, — Harold Love’s review of Grace Ioppolo’s Dramatists and Their Manuscripts in the Age of Shakespeare, Jonson, Middleton and Heywood (May 19) suggests we need to “relocate our tracking system to the founding moment at which an author sits down with a sheet of paper, and looks forward.” This is germane advice with regard to the play Hamlet.

I recently viewed the Searching for Shakespeare exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, and attended its companion conference titled “Shakespeare: Portraiture, Biography, and the Material World,” at which Ms Ioppolo gave an excellent paper. This conference was supported by various scholarly institutions including the Folger Shakespeare Library and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

During the conference it was stated by a leading academic and author that the death in 1596 of William Shakspere’s son Hamnet would have influenced the title the author Shakespeare later chose for his play Hamlet first registered on July 26, 1602.

These scholars fail to mention that the first reference to any performance of a play called “Hamlet” appears in Thomas



The theme fit perfectly with my fascination with the influence on Shakespeare of Greek ritual drama and myth, and my recent readings on Renaissance medicine.1 This led naturally to an exploration of a subject rarely addressed by any of the physicians writing on Shakespeare’s medicine, the evidence of Hermetic and alchemical magic through his representation of medical miracles. The growing excitement I felt in the ensuing months of readings and preparation was capped in the hour before my presentation, when I found myself seated next to Sir Derek Jacobi at lunch; moments later I was introduced as the “keynote” guest speaker by Brunel University Professor William Leahy. At that moment, a wave of anxiety might have swept over me, but, as Hamlet reminds us, “the readiness is all.”

The day-long program included presentations by all three conference organizers as well as Susan Sheridan, a graduate of the authorship studies MA program at Brunel University, and the dynamic Ros Barber, PhD, author of the critically acclaimed poetic narrative, The Marlowe Papers – A Novel in Verse (2012).The program took place in a beautifully lit rehearsal hall at Sackler Studios within the Globe complex. More than eighty students, writers, and authorship doubters from Great Britain and Europe attended, including Hanno Wember of the German authorship group the Neue Shake-speare Gesellschaft. John Shahan, chair of the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, and Mark Mendizza of the Los Angeles based Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable also attended.

Mark Rylance, the former Artistic Di-rector of the Globe, graciously opened the proceedings, thanking the Globe for hosting the program. He spoke on the symbolism incorporated in the design of the new Globe as “Sacred Theatre and Cosmic Stage,” starting by illustrating a series of archetypal images and concluding with a detailed account of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica. Dee’s glyph is an esoteric symbol representing the cosmos, depicting (top to bottom) the moon, the sun, the elements, and fire, and incorpo-rating the astrological symbols of Mercury and Venus. Related cosmic themes, images, dimensions, and symbolic architecture are manifested in the design and art decorating of the Globe. The acoustic center of the theater is by design located at the front of the forestage. The canopy over the stage is known as The Globe “Heavens” and depicts the signs of the zodiac and the sun, moon and stars. At the balcony level the stage is flanked by images of Mercury and Venus, Jupiter and Mars, and the canopy is sup-ported by a pair of magnificent pillars. In “Shakespeare, the Swan and Elizabethan Theatre” (2012), Peter Dawkins explains the relevance of these structures:

One of the most dramatic architectural features of The Globe theatre, from the actors’ and audiences’ point of view, is the pair of Great Pillars set up on the stage and supporting the heavens. These have always been important in sacred theatre design, as also in temples, and express a fundamental teaching of the Mysteries. They represent polarity, without which nothing would exist. They are commonly known as the Pillars of Hercules, but are also referred to as the Pillars of Enoch.2

In his own presentation, “The Lost Word and Swan Song: Rosicrucian and Baconian Themes in Shakespeare’s Comedies and Romances,” Dawkins argued that “the alchemical and initiate process of the ancient mysteries forms the foundation

of Shakespeare’s art, an art clearly designed, like that of Hermes, Orpheus and Solomon, to educate.” Dawkins recounted the 17th century historic origins of Rosicrucianism, and the dedication of this fraternity to bringing about the golden age. Rosicrucians identified with the Phoenix, a personal symbol also embraced by Queen Elizabeth and famously portrayed by Nicholas Hilliard’s portrait.3 Besides this bird of love, there are numerous other Rosicrucian symbols represented in the title pages and headpieces of Shakespeare’s narrative poems, quarto editions, and Folio, as well as in the text and emblems of the Shakespeare Monument at Holy Trinity Church. Dawkins noted the symbolic significance of the repeated “TT” figures on the monument inscription, and suggested the twin pillars on the

Stratford Monument represented the Pillars of Hercules.

Julia Cleave’s presentation was on “Initiations, Transmutations and Resurrection Fables: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Antony & Cleopatra and All’s Well that Ends Well.” She noted that in A Midsummer Night’s Dream “there are multiple allusions to the Greek and Egyptian Mysteries, drawing on its source in Apuleius’s novel, The Golden Ass, and on Plutarch and other classical authors’ accounts of their secret ceremonies. Moreover, in his portrayal of rustic Bottom, Shakespeare plays one of his most serious jokes – what his contemporary, the Rosicrucian Michael Maier, called a lusus serius or jocus severus. Through subtle allusions to St. Paul’s Epistles to the Hebrews, the Colossians, the Corinthians and the Ephesians, Bottom’s experiences of translation and most rare vision associate him with the greatest of all initiates.

“Antony and Cleopatra is Shakespeare’s most alchemical play, appropriate to its setting in ancient Alexandria, the birthplace

(SAT Conference, cont. from p . 1)

The title page of John Dee’s Monas Heiro-glyphica (1564).


historiography and at the same time poses a question of relevance to the Shakespeare authorship. “What are the implications of Shakespeare’s apparent familiarity with an institution which sets such store by secrecy? And why is it that so many of the leading patrons of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Thomas Sackville, Charles Howard, King James I, William Herbert and Inigo Jones, were named uniquely in James Anderson’s 1738 Constitutions as being ‘Patrons or Grand Masters of the Free-Masons’?”

Following the lunch break, I presented my paper, “Shakespeare’s Physic: Hermetic and Alchemical Magic in The Winter’s Tale, Pericles, and All’s Well that Ends Well.” I first reviewed the 150-year-old tradition of physicians writing about Shakespeare’s remarkably nuanced medical knowledge, and summarized the wide number of medical texts seemingly reflected

of Hermetic philosophy. In the opening scenes, Antony is explicitly compared to the great medicine or tincture of the philosophers, while Cleopatra, as serpent of old Nile is identified with the alchemist’s prima materia. In the course of the play, the lovers pass through a process of progressive refinement, a transmutation expressed in terms of the four elements and the seven planetary metals, and culminating in an apotheosis which runs counter to the drama’s apparently tragic trajectory.”4

Cleave further proposed that Shakespeare’s engagement with initiation traditions is to be found in the subplot of All’s Well that Ends Well,5 a finding that challenges conventional Masonic

as literary sources in the canon.6 Drawing on past research, I laid out the mimetic elements of the famous statue scene of The Winter’s Tale, which includes mythopoetic content from the stories of Demeter and Persephone, of Pygmallion (Ovid’s Metamorphoses), of Euripides’ Alcestis, and the Asclepius passage of the Corpus Hermeticum.7 Francis Yates and Eckbert Faas both concluded that Shakespeare was not only familiar with the Asclepius, but also found it profoundly important. “Paulina’s daring magic, with its allusion to the magical statues of the Asclepius, may thus be a key to the meaning of the play as an expression of one of the deepest currents of Renaissance magical philosophy of nature.”8 Lord Cerimon’s recovered “Egyptian” mentioned during the miraculous resuscitation of Queen Thaisa in Pericles9 is undoubtedly another reference to Hermes Trismegistus, the mysterious Alexandrian demigod of the Corpus Hermeticum.

I also discussed the rich evidence of Paracelsian imagery in the canon, and the singular role of Helena in All’s Well as an exemplar of the divinely inspired “empiric” medical practitioner. I concluded by noting the numerous medical books in the libraries of Oxford’s mentors, and how both Mildred and Ann Cecil were acknowledged as successful noble women empirics, much like Helena. Oxford received numerous medical book dedications from both George Baker, Queen Elizabeth’s surgeon and Master of the College of Surgeons, as well as from John Hester, “the man who would single-handedly bring Paracelsism across the English Channel” and who would advertise in his book The First Part of the Keye of Philosophie (1596) two new secret medicines for the cure of fistulas.10

Susan Sheridan then spoke on “Shaking the Spear: The Hermetic interests of the Sidney/Pembroke Circle with special reference to Cymbeline.” Noting that the “new-minted poetic language” linked the circle of scholars and writers around Mary and Philip Sidney to Shakespeare, Sheridan suggested that there is “an undercurrent of esoteric wisdom that profoundly unites them with John Dee and Giordano Bruno as significant influences. Mary Sidney’s group helped promote and further the spear-shaking project, even to the design of the theatres.”

Finally, Ros Barber delivered an animated discourse on “Death’s a Great Disguiser: Resurrecting Shakespeare.” She initially presented several scenarios regarding the reported death of Christopher Marlowe, and proceeded to argue that Doctor Faustus exemplified the journey from magic to philosophy, and the occult representations in Marlowe’s tragedy were “strongly influenced by the Neoplatonic writings of Cornelius Agrippa.” She cited the many characters in Shakespeare who are presumed dead but later are restored to life (e.g., Helena, Hermione, Hero, Imogen, Juliet, Marina, Perdita and Thaisa). Barber concluded by asking the intriguing question, “Might Shakespeare’s passion for resurrection be explored from a more biographical perspective?”

The program ended after a thirty-minute Q and A session with the speakers, followed by adjournment to the Anchor Pub Bankside, where we continued the celebration of Shakespeare’s mystery over pints of ale. A gracious thank you note from Mark Rylance arrived shortly after my return in which he expressed the hope that “we can develop more links and friendship between our


Francis Yates and Eckbert Faas both

concluded that Shakespeare was not

only familiar with the Asclepius, but

also found it profoundly important.

“Paulina’s daring magic, with its

allusion to the magical statues of the

Asclepius, may thus be a key to the

meaning of the play as an expression

of one of the deepest currents of

Renaissance magical philosophy of

nature.”8 Lord Cerimon’s recovered

“Egyptian” mentioned during the

miraculous resuscitation of Queen

Thaisa in Pericles is undoubtedly another

reference to Hermes Trismegistus, the

mysterious Alexandrian demigod of the

Corpus Hermeticum.


associations.” I fully endorse that sentiment and encourage Shake-speare Fellowship members to learn more about the Shakespear-ean Authorship Trust and the programs at Shakespeare’s Globe.

Before the conference convened, I was treated to a perform-ance of Richard III at the Apollo Theatre directed by Tim Carroll, starring Mark Rylance in the title role, and featuring wonderful Renaissance music scored by his wife, Claire van Kampen. Rylance’s brilliant portrayal of Richard as a psychopathic, sarcastic narcissist frequently drew inappropriate laughter from the audience, even during the “now is the winter of our discontent” soliloquy. The combination of pathos and pathology was chilling. The all-male cast from Shakespeare’s Globe Company was outstanding, and even

troubled characters,” Medical Humanities (2011); Dr. John Charles Bucknill, Medical Knowledge of Shakespeare (1860) and The Mad Folk of Shakespeare: Psychological Essays (1867); Dr. R.R. Simpson, Shakespeare and Medicine (1959); Dr. Aubrey Kail, The Medical Mind of Shakespeare (1986); and John Crawford Adams, Shakespeare’s Physic (1989).

2 Peter Dawkins, “Shakespeare, the Swan and Elizabethan Theatre” in Legendary London and the Spirit of Place: New Light on the Great Changes of Our Times (Wimborne Dorset, England: Archive Publishing, 2012). Ancient Greek theater designs reflected in 4th and 5th BCE vase paintings often represented a series of columns decorating the stage skene. Images of skene designs on Greek vases in Mary Louise Hart’s pictorial book The Art of Ancient Greek Theatre (2010) show colonnades, as well as columns used as memorial or temple shrines. The Pillars of Hercules are often thought to represent promonto-ries at the Strait of Gibraltar, the westernmost passage of the Greek hero. The Pillars appear in royal emblems, impresas, and book art, including the engraved title page of Sir Francis Bacon’s Instauratio Magna (1620).

3 The Phoenix Portrait of Elizabeth I by Nicholas Hilliard (c. 1574), Plate 3 in Katherine Chiljan, Shakespeare Suppressed: The Uncensored Truth about Shakespeare and his Works (San Francisco: Faire Editions, 2011). “Above the queen’s hand is a jeweled pendant of a phoenix, her personal symbol, and in her hand is a red rose, the symbol of the house of Tudor.”

4 Personal correspondence.5 This was the subject of a paper first presented in 2005 at an

international conference on Freemasonry under the title: “Burlesquing the Brotherhood – Under the guise of comedy, an Elizabethan sub-plot follows the rules and rituals of a Masonic initiation.”

6 In “Shakespeare’s Medical Knowledge: Reflections from the ER” (Shakespeare Matters, Summer 2012), I detailed a number of the presumed literary sources used by Shakespeare, includ-ing: The Corpus Hippocraticum, Thomas Elyot’s The Castel of Helth (1539), Thomas Vicary’s Anatomy of the Body of Man (1548, 1577), George Baker’s Newe Jewell of Health (1576), Thomas Gale’s Galenic Treatises (1567), John Bannister’s Comendious Chyrugerie (1585), Timothy Bright’s A Treatise of Melancholie (1586), John Hester’s Keye of Philosophie (1596), Peter Lowe’s Whole Course of Chirurgerie (1597), Philemon Holland’s translation of Pliny’s Natural History (1601), Rabelais, and Paracelsus.

7 Earl Showerman, “Mythopoesis of Resurrection: Hesiod to Shakespeare,” Concordia University Press (2009), and “‘Look down and see what death is doing’: Gods and Greeks in The Winter’s Tale,” The Oxfordian 9 (2007).

8 Francis Yates, Majesty and Magic in Shakespeare’s Last Plays (1978).

9 “Death may usurp on nature many hours, /And yet, the fire of life kindle again, /The o’erpressed spirits. I heard of an Egyptian/that had nine hours lain dead, who was by good appliance recovered.”

10 F. David Hoeniger, Medicine and Shakespeare in the English Renaissance (1992).

(SAT Conference, cont. from p . 9)

danced a delightful traditional jig at the end of the performance. Finally, I was privileged to enjoy several days in London and

Essex with Oxfordian friends, visiting Queen’s and King’s Colleges in Cambridge, the Castle and St. Nicholas’ Church at Hedingham, and the medieval town of Lavenham, in what amounted to a preview of sites on the itinerary for the “On the Trail of Edward de Vere De Vere” tour scheduled for June 18-25, 2013. Although the June tour does not yet include seeing a show at the Globe, I would encourage Shakespeare Fellowship members who are free to travel to sign up for what promises to be an unforgettable adventure. [For information about the tour, contact Ann Zakelj at [email protected].]

Endnotes

1 Dr. Frank Davis, “Shakespeare’s Medical Knowledge: How Did He Acquire It?” The Oxfordian 3 (2000); Dr. Kenneth W. Heaton, “Faints, fits, and fatalities from emotion in Shake-speare’s characters,” British Medical Journal (2006), and “Body-consciousness Shakespeare: sensory disturbances in

The program ended after a thirty-minute Q

and A session with the speakers, followed by

adjournment to the Anchor Pub Bankside,

where we continued the celebration of Shake-

speare’s mystery over pints of ale. A gracious

thank you note from Mark Rylance arrived

shortly after my return in which he expressed

the hope that “we can develop more links and

friendship between our associations.” I fully

endorse that sentiment and encourage Shake-

speare Fellowship members to learn more

about the Shakespearean Authorship Trust

and the programs at Shakespeare’s Globe.

page 11Shakespeare Matters Winter 2013

Inspired Commoner?

The world stands in awe of an accepted genius, born in the heart of leafy, fairy-inhabited England, who wrote dramas to justify the Tudor dynasty and comedies to amuse the Queen and her court. In his lectures, the spiritual researcher Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) goes along with the few “facts” taught in schools today about William the actor. Steiner, one-time editor and theater critic of a national weekly in Berlin, was not ignorant of the English playwright’s career. He points to a change around 1598 when a new consciousness is evident, culminating in The Tempest, a mystery play of “world significance.” It took a poet of Ted Hughes’ caliber to trace the central myths that inspired Shakespeare from 1598 onwards (celebrated in his own poems, Venus and Adonis and its secular reversal The Rape of Lucrece). Hughes (1992) shows the “allegory” the Bard actually lived, to which Keats first drew attention (letter 123, Feb., 1819).

This is fine, isn’t it? We approve of a commoner being in-spired and reaching ultimate creative heights. Strange, though, all that court language, and the specialized geographical, legal and cultural knowledge (and more), in the canon. S.T. Coleridge, the romantic poet credited with initiating a new phase in the art of literary criticism, went along with the orthodox Stratfordian view, but he felt the impossibility that a country person could be our inspired Bard:

Ask your own hearts, – ask your own common sense – to conceive the possibility of this man... being the anomalous, the wild, the irregular, genius of our daily criticism! What! are we to have miracles in sport? – Or, I speak reverently, does God choose idiots by whom to convey divine truths to man?1

Nearly 200 years on, we know more than Coleridge did. But why should we get involved in the growing interest in the “authorship question”? Didn’t Shakespeare write his own plays? And anyway, what has it all to do with real life?

Inspired Courtier?

Now, of course, such an attitude goes against Steiner’s explicit directions, to take the results of spiritual science and test them in the light of all the evidence and research. Even regarding secular “accepted” history, we accept that other governments in the world were corrupt, but are slow to realize our own has taken a lead. I mention this because it now appears that William was the front man for the actual playwright whose tortured life at the heart of Elizabethan government stimulated his unprecedented creative response. That response is what concerns me, whoever the writer was: of a renewed appreciation of the Bard’s achievement, I sug-gest, we can indeed be proud.

It looks different when the image of a chameleon poet is revealed as pure fiction. The plays (excepting The Merry Wives of Windsor) – whether “historical,” “legendary” or “romantic,”

concern aristocrats and the actual hot seat, the throne of England. The prolonged topical question of the succession at the time of the making of modern Britain is more than an historical “topic” for the individuals concerned, and more than an academic interest for us today. It may be objected that art occupies another realm. But art is not – and never was – divorced from “real life,” including Shakespeare’s. Politicians may want us to believe otherwise. Art and life are one to the complete artist. How could it be otherwise for, of all artists, the Bard himself?

Shakespeare’s art did not fall ready-made from heaven, or even the Warwickshire countryside, but was born out of the deep-est frustration a human being in the midst of life can bear. This

is my conclusion after fifty years searching, including assessing the latest impressive research. It has culminated in a second look at what Steiner actually said exactly one hundred years ago. Steiner, I believe, went to the heart of the problem and all but named the author. His revelation from karmic research (Basel, 15 September, 1912) lifts the whole debate, yet at the same time supplies a major clue on the authorship question. Steiner knew the right time would come to clarify the details.

Too awful for words?

The all-too-human details, however, involve a can of worms (Continued on page 12)

(Steiner, cont. from p. 1)

The world stands in awe of an accepted

genius, born in the heart of leafy, fairy-

inhabited England, who wrote dramas to

justify the Tudor dynasty and comedies

to amuse the Queen and her court. In

his lectures, the spiritual researcher

Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) goes along

with the few “facts” taught in schools

today about William the actor. Steiner,

one-time editor and theater critic of a

national weekly in Berlin, was not igno-

rant of the English playwright’s career.

He points to a change around 1598 when

a new consciousness is evident, culmi-

nating in The Tempest, a mystery play of

“world significance.”


– hence, I suggest, Steiner’s reticent public attitude. I suggest, too, we are now broadminded enough to cope with illicit unions, Machiavellian villains – and Elizabeth’s children. They joined the Royal Wards, of whom Edward de Vere (1548?-1604) was the first and Henry Wriothesley (1573-1624) the last. Behind the show of “merrie England,” but in front of our noses, was a dangerous Tudor experiment initiated by Henry VIII. Yet why should we be concerned, for example, with his “keep it within the family” and its questionable sacred nimbus, since we “have the plays”?

Well, the process of regaining the poems and plays is nowhere near exhausted. Does one need to defend the search for truth in any subject? If history has to be rewritten, so be it. Moreover, the truth is not “too awful for words,” for it produced the Sonnets and all the undisputed masterpieces. An entire layer of brilliant satire and parody in the canon reveals the playwright as our most dissident contemporary author – without Elizabeth’s protection he would never have survived the censor. Moreover, returning the works to their actual author is emphatically not “simply substituting names,” but – as Steiner clearly implies – learning to appreciate how the Bard inwardly faced his apparently impossible situation

and identified with the Mystery of Golgotha. Hamlet and the late plays are most evidential of the Christian impulse – unarguably so.

The challenge today

No other fact, moreover, will really help English speak-ing people today in coming to terms with the death struggles of 400 years of empire – which the Bard clearly foresaw – with the increasing phenomena of conspiracy theory, which is no “theory.” (Why were the Gunpowder “plotters” allowed to use the army’s gunpowder?) Our century unfortunately will see more than the summer riots of 2011 and will see worse governmental clampdowns. Against the encroaching commercial monoculture, Shakespeare’s message and his example for us is essential, Steiner insists – and it has repercussions in the world. We already know Hamlet as a “man of the theater,” writing for and rehearsing the players, picturing the real-life Lord Chamberlain, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, with his troupe, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men.

Our understanding and response to a text or drama in pro-duction will be affected, among other things, by our knowledge of the author and his/her historical, personal, and cultural con-text; our receptiveness to symbols, images, archetypal forms; our awareness that the work changes as time moves on. One of the qualities of a great work of art is that its meanings continue to unfold or even sometimes explode. Apart from anything else, it is the performer who most needs to be alive to such changes, whether small or seismic.

If Oxford wrote the plays, the writing is on the wall (actually in our hands, in the canon); a paradigm change is predicted. It is now 100 years since Steiner spoke about “Shakespeare’s Hamlet.” It needs to be taken to heart. My thesis that Steiner knew the whole story would, admittedly, hardly stand up in a court of law. However, Oxfordians (united in claiming Edward de Vere – Eliza-beth’s “my little Turk” – is the Bard) have twice opened a public trial of their authorship claim against the orthodox Stratfordians. The judges were impressed. I only suggest, 100 years on, lovers of Shakespeare give Steiner his due. Both he and the Bard are our contemporaries – “Not of an age, but for all time.” Perhaps only now can we realize how true Ben Jonson’s words are.

We have to be clear about the issues; they are neither superficial nor specialist, but involve our present choices and consequently the future. The orthodox view of 400 years standing is now increasingly challenged as a political conspiracy. That the Bard was born an aristocrat is a stumbling block to those who are devoted to preserve an image of the inspired natural (perhaps to keep company with Sam Gamgee, the real hero of Tolkien’s epic). But the great Shakespearean tragedies are not the product of natural talent, being written in the author’s heart’s blood! And I have found no evidence at all of an elitist agenda amongst Oxfordians known to me.

What is imperative? That the Bard be united to his work! The politicians’ fabrications cannot be allowed to continue. In the light of recent research, Steiner’s revelation lifts the whole debate. With the results of recent research, the life-situation and artistic achievement of the real author is more fully revealed.


If Oxford wrote the plays, the writing is on

the wall (actually in our hands, in the canon);

a paradigm change is predicted. It is now

100 years since Steiner spoke about “Shake-

speare’s Hamlet.” It needs to be taken to

heart. My thesis that Steiner knew the whole

story would, admittedly, hardly stand up in a

court of law. However, Oxfordians (united in

claiming Edward de Vere – Elizabeth’s “my

little Turk” – is the Bard) have twice opened a

public trial of their authorship claim against

the orthodox Stratfordians. The judges were

impressed. I only suggest, 100 years on, lov-

ers of Shakespeare give Steiner his due. Both

he and the Bard are our contemporaries –

“Not of an age, but for all time.” Perhaps only

now can we realize how true Ben Jonson’s

words are.


Insight and research meet. Undeniably, we inherit very much of the Bard’s spiritual aims and destiny. With the “Shakespeare authorship question,” is it possible to sit on the fence, if the fence no longer exists?

*

From: Rudolf Steiner, The Gospel of Mark (GA 139). Lecture, Basel. 15 Sept. 1912. Tr. A. S. with emphases added, and further additions in brackets.

I would now like to turn your atten-tion to something that took place in the time after Christ. It could be said again that we are dealing with a poetic figure (gestalt). But this “poetic fig-ure” is derived from a real personality (persönlichkeit), who stood in life [HECTOR of Troy–Edward de VERE].

I direct your attention to the figure Shakespeare created in his [self-projection] Hamlet. Those who know Shakespeare’s basic figure (Grundg-estalt), so far as we can get to know him externally, but especially knows it out of spiritual science [which I will come to], knows that Shakespeare’s Hamlet is but the reshaped (umgestaltete) real Danish prince [Amleth] who had really lived [c. 11th century CE]. The figure (gestalt) of Hamlet that Shakespeare created really lived. I cannot now go into it, to show how the historical fig-ure (gestalt) [AMLETH, who gets his Old-Testament-style Norse revenge] lies at the basis of Shakespeare’s poeti-cal character (figur) [HAMLET, who struggles against the call to revenge].

But the results of spiritual science I would like to go into, would like to show here a striking example of how a spirit of antiquity appears again in the time after Christ. The real figure (Gestalt) lying at the basis of what Shakespeare formed (gestaltet) as Hamlet is Hector [not Amleth]. The same soul lived in Hamlet that lived in Hector.

Precisely with such a characteristic example, where the difference [be-

tween the outer situation of AMLETH, and the “prototype,” the “poetic fig-ure,” the inner “soul”: HECTOR–de VERE] of presenting themselves is strikingly presented, that we can become clear what actually happened in the intervening time. A personality (Persönlichkeit) like that of Hector [a “leader of men”] stands before us on

heir to the throne] that it cannot fulfil.

One can ask: Why did Shakespeare express it in this way? He did not “know” [as a scientist knows]. But whoever through spiritual science looks into these contexts knows what forces are standing behind. The poet creates in the unconscious, since before him there stands the figure (gestalt) which he creates, and then like a tableau – but of which he knows nothing – the whole individuality (in-dividualität) connected to it. Why does Shakespeare quite especially bring out characteristics of Hamlet, sharply emphasizing them, which perhaps no contemporary observer [neither most modern critics, viz. the systematic destruction of a noble prince] would have noticed with the figure (gestalt) of Hamlet? Because he observed them against the background of the time. He feels how different the soul has become with the change from the old life to the new. The doubter, the sceptic [Shakespeare’s] Hamlet, not able to cope with the situation of life [the machinations of power politics], the waverer [tempted by the impure ghost to practice a revenge ethic and kill his uncle, an anointed king], that is what has become of Hector, once so sure of himself.…

*

The thesis summarized:

In this lecture of 1912, Steiner alludes to “a Danish prince,” focuses on “Shake-speare’s Hamlet,” and significantly reveals who Hamlet’s real “prototype” is. We note:

• Shakespeare’s play Hamlet ends differently from the history of Amleth in Saxo Gammaticus, known to scholars. In Steiner’s lecture, Amleth (not actually named) disappears from view. • Hector reincarnated as the Hamlet “Shakespeare formed,” inwardly changed; this is the result of spiritual/scientific research.• If, as many have remarked,

the one side in the pre-Christian era. The Mystery of Golgotha intervenes in humankind’s development, and the spark [of transformation, of “new life”] that enters the soul of Hector causes the prototype of Hamlet to arise, about which Goethe said, [of] a soul, not able to deal with the situation, not equal to deal with any situation, given a task [to rule himself and fulfil his task as


The politicians’ fabrica-

tions cannot be allowed to

continue. In the light of

recent research, Steiner’s

revelation lifts the whole

debate. With the results

of recent research, the

life-situation and artistic

achievement of the real

author is more fully re-

vealed. Insight and re-

search meet. Undeniably,

we inherit very much of

the Bard’s spiritual aims

and destiny. With the

“Shakespeare authorship

question,” is it possible

to sit on the fence, if the

fence no longer exists?


“Shakespeare’s Hamlet” is his most complete self-projection, almost a self-portrait, of Edward de Vere’s situation in Elizabethan London, then Steiner is likely to be the first to have sketched the deepest context for the Bard. We need more than simply the Prince Tudor theme – though that, too – to explain the Bard’s situation.

Circumstantial evidence since Looney has

since accumulated by Oxfordian scholars,

including:

• a Ph.D. study (Roger Stritmatter 2001)

on de Vere’s annotated copy of the

Geneva Bible held in the Folger Library,

Washington DC;

• Stritmatter and Kositsky have shown

that T�� T�m��st (the test case regard-

ing dates of writing) was written in or

before 1603 (web articles);

• a word-for-word, line-by-line analysis of

the Sonnets (Hank Whittemore 2005

– this “smoking gun” is unchallenged

by Stratfordians, which I take as signifi-

cant) as a consistently coded sequence

addressed initially to his son by Queen

Elizabeth, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl

of Southampton, the unacknowledged

heir, Henry IX....

• biographies tracing the many links

of Edward de Vere’s life to the canon

(Mark Anderson 2005; Charles Beau-

clerk 2010).

• Steiner’s allusion elsewhere to James’ “inspiration” is most strongly corroborated by the “rival brothers” myth; James Stuart was the clear rival claimant to the English throne – like de Vere, James also had Hamlet-style origins: his father was murdered

and his mother Mary Queen of Scots was romantically disreputable.• Steiner’s remarks (1912) precede the discovery of Edward de Vere as a candidate for authorship (J. Thomas Looney 1920).

Circumstantial evidence since Looney has since accumulated by Oxfordian scholars, including:

• a Ph.D. study (Roger Stritmatter 2001) on de Vere’s annotated copy of the Geneva Bible held in the Folger Library, Washington DC;

• Stritmatter and Kositsky have shown that The Tempest (the test case regarding dates of writing) was written in or before 1603 (web articles);

• a word-for-word, line-by-line analysis of the Sonnets (Hank Whittemore 2005 – this “smoking gun” is un-challenged by Stratfordians, which I take as significant) as a consistently coded sequence addressed initially to his son by Queen Elizabeth, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, the unacknowledged heir, Henry IX. The later Sonnets relate the end of the Tudor dynasty – Elizabeth was determined to transcend her origins; the politicians who held the power were determined to silence all rival claimants. The only option for the poet was to create for posterity a “monument,” the Sonnets, in coded language depicting the true situation;

• biographies tracing the many links of Edward de Vere’s life to the canon (Mark Anderson 2005; Charles Beau-clerk 2010).

Endnotes

1 S.T. Coleridge. Lecture, 1818, in Coleridge: Poems and Prose. Penguin Books [1957], 240.



saw only the repeated grief of past losses in Sonnet 30. I will show that de Vere’s biblical source alludes to his own past sins, creating further continuity with the poet’s state of “disgrace” in the preceding sonnet.

As John Kerrigan4 and others have pointed out, chapter 11 of the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon contains the phrase of my title. It is in the second half of Wisdom, that reviews Jewish his-tory. Thus, it constitutes its own “remembrance of things past.” This review concludes that the Spirit of Wisdom consistently protects the righteous, while punishing their enemies. “Sessions” and “summon” in Sonnet 30, as Stephen Booth observed, allude to legal proceedings, so an ambiguous accusation hangs over the sonnet. With imagery of legal proceedings that is consistent with Sonnet 30, the Genevan Wisdom 11:8 is “For when they were tryed and chastised with mercie, they knewe how the ungodlie were judged and punished in wrath.”5 That is one of two verse numbers de Vere underlined in this chapter (11:13 is the other—see below). 11:10 is “Whether they were absent or present, their punishment was alike: for their grief was double with mourning, and the remembrance of things past.” Elucidating that last phrase in Wisdom will help elucidate its meaning in Sonnet 30.

As Roger Stritmatter has documented,6 many of de Vere’s annotations in Wisdom correlate with the works of Shakespeare. De Vere showed special interest in the treatment of “sin” in this book.7 He underlined only the number for verse 20 in Chap-ter 4; it includes, “So they being afraied, shal remember their sinnes.” Also 14:30 and 15:2 are the only verses underlined in their respective chapters, and they also include “sinne” once and twice, respectively. (By contrast, 18:2 is uniquely underlined; it includes the word “perfume,” which recalls the fact “the Earl of Oxford’s perfume” long referred to the perfumed Italian gloves he introduced to England.) The word “sinned” is underlined in 10:8; “sinne” is underlined in 10:13; and “sinneth” is underlined in 11:13 (See Figure 1, p. 15). These are the only underlined words in Wisdom. (11:17 has the phrase, “thou hast ordered all things in measure, nomber, and weight,” which is quoted in The Arte of English Poesie.)8 In all, de Vere underlined a total of 35 verse numbers in Wisdom; thirteen of the nineteen chapters are an-notated in some way. The books of the Apocrypha were the focus of theological divisions during the Reformation, which may have contributed to de Vere’s interest in them (he heavily annotated Ecclesiasticus, for example).

“Remembrance” also occurs in 10:7 and in 12:2. Both these instances in adjoining chapters refer to the memory of sin. The former is “for a remembrance of the unfaithful soule [Lot’s wife], there standeth a piller of salte.” The second verse, whose number is underlined, includes “Therefore thou chastenest them measurably that go wrong, and warnest them by putting them in remembrance of the things wherein they have offended.” These two further instances reinforce “things past” in Sonnet 30 as an allusion to sin.

I submit that de Vere’s special interest in references to sin in Wisdom helps answer the question as to what things past are

being remembered in Sonnet 30. I believe that de Vere stands accused in the sonnet—by others and by himself-- of his past “foolishness” and “sins.”

The biblical context of Shakespeare’s phrase deepens our reading of Sonnet 30. “My dear time’s waste” recalls two refer-ences to “waste” in Wisdom— 4:19 includes “So that they [the unrighteous] shal fall hereafter without honour... for without anie voyce shal he burste them and cast them downe, and shake them from the fundacions, so that they shalbe utterly wasted, and they shalbe in sorowe, and their memorial shal perish.” 10:7, referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, says “Of whose wickednes the waste land that smoketh.”

The second quatrain of Sonnet 30 begins, “Then can I drown an eye (unused to flow).” Wisdom 10:19 credits the Spirit of Wisdom with destroying the Egyptians as the Israelites escaped across the Sea of Reeds: “But she drowned their enemies, and

broght them [i.e., the Israelites] out of the botome of the depe.” The speaker is thus implicitly likened to the Israelites’ enemies (especially given de Vere’s pattern of using “eye” to allude to “I”). Recall that 11:10 includes, “their punishment was alike: for their grief was double with mourning.” That is, their divinely imposed punishment is doubly painful, as the unrighteous are forced to remember their sins. I believe that here 11:10 is alluding to the preceding 10:8: “For all suche as regarded not wisdome, had not onely this hurt, that they knewe not the things which were good, but also left behinde them unto men a memorial of their foolishnes, so that in the things wherein they sinned, they cannot lie hid.” Again, a double “hurt,” compounded by the memorial (record, or memory) of their past sin. Seemingly unaware of this biblical source, Vendler spoke of the sonnet’s “repeated grief” (165).9 The biblical “grief was double with mourning: is enacted verbally in the sonnet when the first use of “woe” later leads to the doubling of “woe to woe,” and when the first use of “moan” later leads to the double “fore-bemoaned moan.” Doubling also

Wisdom 11.13 from the de Vere Geneva Bible, cour-tesy the Folger Shakespeare Library.


(Remembrance, cont. from p. 1)


occurs in phrases such as “grieve at grievances” and “new pay as if not paid.” These instances of doubling are all consistent with the biblical image that “their grief was double with mourning, and the remembrance of things past.” There is, as well, the doubling redundancy inherent in “remembrance of things past,” since things present or future do not constitute memories.

“Many a vannisht sight” recalls Wisdom 2:2-3—“we shalbe hereafter as thogh we had never bene; for the breth is a smoke in our nostrels, and the wordes as a sparke raised out of our heart. Which being extinguished, the body is turned into ashes, and the

spirit vanisheth as the soft aire.” Significantly for an author who hid his authorship, the next verse, 2:4 includes, “Our name also shalbe forgotten in time.” “Vanished” also recalls several other tropes of transience and disappearance in Wisdom— “All those things are passed away like a shadow” (5:9). No “trace” can be found after a ship passes through the water, or a bird flies through the sky, or an arrow shoots through the air (5:10-12).

The third quatrain’s “Then can I grieve at grievances foregone” seemingly alludes to the poet’s grief at his losses. But the many passages about the sins of the unrighteous in de Vere’s biblical source for this sonnet unpack another set of meanings of the verb “grieve” and the noun “grievances.” Several now obsolete meanings listed in the OED are transitive verbs meaning “to op-

press; to do wrong, hurt; to bring trouble or harm to a person; to do bodily hurt or cause bodily discomfort or disease; to affect [someone else] with grief or deep sorrow; to make angry or of-fend.” The next line, “And heavily from woe to woe tell o’er...” puns on the Latin root of “grieve” as “gravis,” meaning “heavy.”

Thus, de Vere’s biblical sources allow him to allude indirectly to his past sins without the humiliation of acknowledging them explicitly in Sonnet 30. He thus enacts God’s role as described in Wisdom 11:20—“But thou hast mercie upon all: for thou hast power of all things, and makest as thogh thou sawest not the sinnes of men, because they shulde amende.” “Loves long since canceld woe” in the second quatrain of the sonnet may allude to the next verse in Wisdom, 11:21: “For thou lovest all the things that are, and hatest none of them whom thou hast made.” That is, divine love has the power to lead God to overlook the sins of the contrite, and to “cancel woe.”

“The sad account of fore-bemoned mone” may echo Wisdom 12:14—“There dare nether King nor tyrant in thy sight [to] re-quire accountes of them whom thou has punished.”10 The couplet then acknowledges the power of the Youth to make amends for all the “losses” and “sorrows” of the sonnet’s first 12 lines, if de Vere merely calls him to mind. “Restore” in the final line’s “all losses are restored” can mean “to free from the effects of sin” (OED, 4a), while “sorrows” in the final phrase “and sorrows end” can mean (as can “grief”) “harm, hurt, damage” (OED 5b). As in many sonnets, the Youth and his redemptive power are thus dei-fied, or, in Sonnet 30, he is implicitly compared with the Spirit of Wisdom, who repeatedly rescues and redeems the righteous from life’s assorted tribulations.

Stritmatter noted some allusions to Wisdom in Sonnet 60. Another is in its phrase, “Nativity once in the maine of light.” Wisdom 6:22 says of the Spirit of Wisdom, “I... will seke her out from the beginning of her nativitie,11 and bring the knowledge of her into light, and wil not kepe backe the trueth.”

Although there were other uses of “remembrance of things past” before the Geneva Bible, the latter was one of the most sig-nificant literary sources for Shakespeare’s works. The phrase was, however, used in Thomas Wyatt’s 1528 translation12 of Plutarch’s The Quiet of Mind (“of the remedy of ill fortune”), in a context that also seems relevant to Sonnet 30. It is in the final sentence of this brief book. In Plutarch, the phrase is again in the context of sadness and trouble, but, in contrast with the passage in Wisdom, it offers the “plesaunt” reassurance of being “without any blame.”

In summary, careful study of Sonnet 30 demonstrates the richness of de Vere’s biblical annotations in continuing to deepen our understanding of Shakespeare’s works.

1 I am grateful to James H. Hutchinson, M.D., for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.

The third quatrain’s “Then can I grieve at

grievances foregone” seemingly alludes to the

poet’s grief at his losses. But the many pas-

sages about the sins of the unrighteous in de

Vere’s biblical source for this sonnet unpack

another set of meanings of the verb “grieve”

and the noun “grievances.” Several now ob-

solete meanings listed in the OED are transi-

tive verbs meaning “to oppress; to do wrong,

hurt; to bring trouble or harm to a person; to

do bodily hurt or cause bodily discomfort or

disease; to affect [someone else] with grief or

deep sorrow; to make angry or offend.” The

next line, “And heavily from woe to woe tell

o’er...” puns on the Latin root of “grieve” as

“gravis,” meaning “heavy.”

(Remembrance, cont. from p. 15)


[Editor’s Note: The following review has been slightly modi-fied from one originally written for Amazon, where it was posted on October 28, 2012, under the title “The Boxing Gloves have Come Off.” It and currently appears as one of three reviews of McClarran’s book. Twenty-seven of twenty-nine readers voted it useful, and it elicited a lively discussion.]

The greatest difficulty in reviewing this fine scholarly polemic is to decide which examples to pick to illustrate the author’s devastating critique of the assumptions and methodology of the orthodox Shakespearean biographical tradition. There are so many that it is difficult to know which one will best exemplify the author’s methodical ap-proach to the problem of dismantling the farrago of misinformation that has all too often passed as scholarly wisdom on the subject of Shakespeare.

So before I offer a few examples let me anticipate the onslaught that is sure to follow should this book gain the atten-tion it ultimately deserves. First, the author has, so far as I can tell, zero credentials as a Shakespeare specialist. Against this one must balance the fact that he has come as far as the light of study and reason allow in comprehen-sively understanding the critical challenges he discusses, by immersing himself in the relevant scholarly literature and applying his powers of intellect to interpret the strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, and fallacies of that literature.

McClarran’s relationship with the orthodox Shakespear-ean tradition is by no means a unilateral one; he cites reams of quotations from orthodox scholars who were honest enough to admit facts about the bard that run contrary to their own assump-tions about who he was. One may conclude that “McClarran” (a psuedonym; if I understand correctly, another book is about to be published under his real name) has done his homework. Let it be noted for the record then, that those likely to write disparaging reviews of this book, if past experience is any judge, will attack

Book Review

I Com� To Bu�� S�aks��: A D�const�uct�on of t�� Fab�� of t�� St�atfo�d�an S�ak��s��a��

and t�� Su��o�t�n� Sc�o�a�s��CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012.

508 pp.by Steven McClarran

Reviewed by Roger Stritmatter

the author for his lack of credentials while failing to mention that they themselves not only have none of those vaunted deco-rations of expertise, but also have not done their homework the way McClarran has. It may also be salutary to acknowledge that the book in this

printing has not been carefully enough edited and proof-read. For example, the name of the great French scholar Albert Feuillerat is repeatedly spelled “Feuillerate.” More serious, to this reader, is the tendency to use the first person plural “we” when a more direct construction would feel less like forcing the reader’s hand with a presumption of authority. The book’s argument is sound and does not require such rhetorical flourishes to convince. Of similar concern is the absence of an index. A book of this importance, length, and com-plexity deserves one, to help the reader locate or return to items of special interest (per-haps the Kindle edition is superior in that regard since it allows automatic search). But I come not to bury this book with pedantic criticisms, but to praise it....Despite these nits to pick (and there are doubtless others), this is a 5 Star book. Ah...where to begin?

This book is divided into three sections and fourteen

chapters, tracing through the following topics:

1) Profiling Shakespeare (citing reams of orthodox authority on Shakespeare’s comprehensive knowledge of many sub-jects, from foreign language to music or heraldry)

2) The Problems of Shaksper as Shakespeare

3) Four Foundational Stratfordian Assumptions

4) Presumptive Proof Number One: Grammar School Utopia

5) Presumption Proof Number Two: the Standard Chronology(Continued on page 18)


6) The Problems of Stratfordian Scholar-ship and a Few Examples

7) The Elizabethan Context Rediscov-ered

8) Oxford vrs. Shaksper

9) The Symmetry of Oxford as Shake-speare

10) Timon of Athens - Key to the Au-thorship Controversy

11) The Arguments Against Oxford

12) To Bury or Not to Bury

13) Accounting for the Stratfordian Scholarship Disaster

14) Conclusion

As these sections themselves re-veal, perhaps the greatest strength of this book is the author’s willingness to take on Stratfordian pundits like David Kathman, Irv Matus, and Scott McCrea (none of whom, let it be noted, has any more claim to traditional authority on the subject than McClarran) and expose in many concrete instances the shallow or deceptive nature of their arguments. Here, for instance, is McClarran’s takedown of Stephen Greenblatt’s dia-tribe equating authorship skeptics with those who deny the existence of evolution (“The idea that William Shakespeare’s authorship of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture, and the idea that ‘the authorship controversy’ should be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of current arguments that ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside evolution”):

The problem of corrupted methodol-ogy lies at the core of the...problem....Professor Greenblatt provides us a singularly potent example of what is known in logic as a false equivalency while, at the same time, putting a spotlight on the problems at the heart of Stratfordian scholarship. Evolu-tion, while still commonly referred to as a “theory,” has been validated by an overwhelming accumulation of scientific evidence.....in the case of Shaksper’s alleged authorship there is

no scientific proof and no unequivo-cal evidence. There is only the very limited historical evidence, open to interpretation as it is, a good deal of conflicting evidence and, in spite of the conflicting evidence (here we concede to Professor Greenblatt), an “overwhelming scholarly consensus.” [But] whatever virtues an “over-whelming scholarly consensus” may have, it is not the equivalent of

whelming consensus” was that Man was created by God, in God’s image, from scratch..... (289-90).

I will now skip to a selection from McClarran’s conclusion when he considers the question “how could all those experts be so wrong?” He replies:

There is evidence of erudition and intellectual industry in Stratfordian scholarship. But that is not enough. In the foregoing chapters we have seen, in example after example, on critical questions, that Stratfordian biographers routinely and system-atically conflate fact and conjecture, that they infer facts where they are not logically inferable, that they invent facts, that they sweep contradictory evidence aside with flimsy and even absurd rationaliza-tions, that they ignore science, and that they hold themselves sufficient in matters outside their specialty, that they mislead themselves, that they are viciously intolerant toward skeptics, and that they openly op-pose curiosity and free discussion. Worst of all, as we argued previ-ously, they murdered Shake-speare and, to defend their position, have put a man in his place who is, in essence, the anti-Shake-speare. Other than that, they’ve done a splendid job. (484)

As I said in the title to this review, the boxing gloves have come off. Despite its insufficient editing in this edition, I Come to Bury Shaksper is a tour de force of scholarly critique. It is obvious, whoever the author may be, that he has a strong background in what is after the all the most essential area of study for comprehending the Shakespeare debate: he is an expert in critical thinking who does not hesitate to call a spade a digging implement. For anyone with an interest in Shakespeare, the authorship question, or even just the history of ideas, I cannot recommend this book too highly.

(Bury, cont. from p. 17)

science or scientific proof. In short what we are talking about is the dif-ference between scientific method and historical method, a distinction that Stratfordian scholarship has labored to obscure from view....the theory of evolution is supported by paleological, geological, and biological evidence.....Shaksper’s attendance of the Stratford grammar school, the adequacy of the school, and the standard chronology are supported by nothing more than collective opinion, with no substantive biographical evidence or cultural data. The difference between the deniers of evolution and those who swear that Shaksper’s authorship is a fact is that the latter have “an overwhelming consensus.” When Darwin introduced his theory of evolution...the “over-

The problem of corrupted

methodology lies at the

core of the...problem....

Professor Greenblatt

provides us a singularly

potent example of what is

known in logic as a false

equivalency while, at the

same time, putting a spot-

light on the problems at

the heart of Stratfordian

scholarship.


Diplomacy can be defined as the art and practice of conducting nego-tiations about issues in which the

parties share overlapping but conflicting interests. Effective diplomacy involves, first, persuading the other parties that the specific circumstances of a given situation are as the diplomat sees them, and, second, that the other parties can best reach their goals in that situation by agreeing to take actions that the diplomat also believes are in his own interest in those circumstances. It is not often that someone sees it as in his interest to use his diplomatic skills to deprive himself of credit for his artistic, literary, scientific or technological creations, discoveries or inventions. Yet history provides us with the remarkable example of one man who did just that. Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, not only agreed to, but pushed for, the permanent substitution of the name William Shakespeare in place of his own because there was something he wanted even more than credit for his literary works: the commutation of the death sentence passed on Henry Wriothesley, Third Earl of Southampton, who had been convicted of treason in February 1601 for his role in the rebellion organized by Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex. Although circumstantial evidence indicates that such an agreement was made between Oxford and Robert Cecil, Secretary of State for Queen Elizabeth, and others, not much is known of the actual diplomatic negotiations that Oxford prob-ably conducted to reach that agreement. The reasoning or persuasive arguments that he might have used in his negotia-tions with Cecil have not yet been clearly spelled out. In particular, I believe that one key factor in the diplomatic discus-sions – the factor that enabled Oxford to persuade Cecil that sparing Southampton’s life was in the best interests of Cecil and

The Overlooked But Critical Significanceof the Two Dedications to Southampton

by James A. Warren

the other parties – has not yet been fully recognized or appreciated. That factor is

the dedications to Southampton that Ox-ford published with the two poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.

To understand the significance of the Dedications for the agreement permanently attributing Oxford’s works to William Shakespeare in return for the commuting of Southampton’s death sen-tence, it is necessary to consider several factors at play during the decade between the publication of the Dedications in 1593 and 1594 and the agreement that was evi-dently reached in 1601. Only then can we fully understand what pressures each party to the agreement faced, what they gained from the agreement, and what they gave up by agreeing to it. The most important factors at play in England in the early years of the 17th century were that Queen Elizabeth was aging and that a new monarch would need to be selected soon. Related to this were Robert Cecil’s post-rebellion, ongoing ef-forts to secure the throne of England for King James of Scotland. It is not difficult to see what Cecil and James would gain by his efforts: James would gain the throne, and Cecil, whose position, power and wealth all came from Queen Elizabeth, would have in place another monarch willing to keep him in his current position of power. The effort to secure these two outcomes were surely complex, but the only part of that story to be discussed here is the agreement that appears to have been reached between Cecil and James on one hand, and Oxford and Southampton on the other. It is not immediately apparent why Oxford would have been involved in the negotiations between Cecil and James, nor is it clear why either of them would have been at all interested, in this context, in whether Oxford renounced permanently his authorship of his literary works. Nor is there any obvious connection between those issues and Southampton’s impend-ing execution. The apparent lack of such connections meant that Oxford would

It is not often that someone

sees it as in his interest to

use his diplomatic skills to

deprive himself of credit for

his artistic, literary, scientific

or technological creations,

discoveries or inventions.

Yet history provides us with

the remarkable example of

one man who did just that.

Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl

of Oxford, not only agreed

to, but pushed for, the per-

manent substitution of the

name William Shakespeare

in place of his own because

there was something he

wanted even more than credit

for his literary works: the

commutation of the death

sentence passed on Henry

Wriothesley, Third Earl of

Southampton.



have had to have been the diplomat, the dealmaker bringing all sides to the table and convincing them that a deal to com-mute Southampton’s sentence would be in their best interest. Let us now see what Oxford might have said in his effort to have Southamp-ton’s sentence commuted – a successful outcome that history records as fact, but has never explained. Although we cannot

Southampton’s life; that would have been demeaning and ineffective. He must have offered them something weighty enough to balance the act of commuting South-ampton’s death sentence, something that would have helped them reach their goal of installing James on the throne. He would have had to convince them that they would be worse off by not agreeing to the deal he proposed. Oxford could have offered coopera-tion with the effort to name James as the next king rather than opposition to it. Because Oxford was among the highest ranking earls in the kingdom, his support was something they would have desired. He could have offered not only to work to convince others that James should be the next king, but also to remain silent about two key facts – that James was technically ineligible to become king because he was not born on English soil, and that James did not have Queen Elizabeth’s blessing. But Cecil and James would likely not have seen that as sufficient to balance the act of commuting Southampton’s sentence. After all, other courtiers were agreeing to support James’s succession without receiving such big favors about matters of state in return. So, what else might Oxford have brought to the table? Oxford could also have offered to continue to hide his authorship of his poems and plays, something that he had already been doing. He had published two long poems under the pseudonym William Shakespeare in 1593 and 1594, and when he begun to publish his plays in the 1590s, he had done so anonymously at first, and then in 1598 under the name of William Shakespeare. At the same time, Francis Meres, perhaps with Oxford’s authoriza-tion, publicly stated in Palladis Tamia that Shakespeare was the author of a dozen plays. Would this have been enough to trade for the release of Southampton? Cecil would have wanted Oxford’s literary works not to be published at all, in accor-dance with the usual practice of courtiers not publishing their works during their lifetime. He would not have wanted to see works performed on the public stage attributed to a courtier, and he would not have been pleased that Oxford had, in his

reproduce the words and phrasings that the greatest master of the English language might have spoken, we can examine the logic of the situation to see what arguments he might have used that Cecil and James found persuasive. We know that Cecil and James wanted James to become the next King, and we know that Oxford wanted South-ampton’s sentence commuted. Oxford could not merely beg Cecil and James for

plays, flouted prohibitions against the portrayal of persons still living.

Cecil would also have wanted the continuation of the Shakespeare pseud-onym to prevent the public from realizing

We know that Cecil and

James wanted James to

become the next King, and

we know that Oxford wanted

Southampton’s sentence

commuted. Oxford could not

merely beg Cecil and James

for Southampton’s life; that

would have been demeaning

and ineffective. He must

have offered them something

weighty enough to balance

the act of commuting South-

ampton’s death sentence,

something that would have

helped them reach their goal

of installing James on the

throne.

Would this have been enough

to trade for the release of

Southampton? Cecil would

have wanted Oxford’s liter-

ary works not to be published

at all, in accordance with the

usual practice of courtiers not

publishing their works dur-

ing their lifetime. He would

not have wanted to see works

performed on the public stage

attributed to a courtier, and he

would not have been pleased

that Oxford had, in his plays,

flouted prohibitions against the

portrayal of persons still living.

Cecil would also have

wanted the continuation of the

Shakespeare pseudonym to

prevent the public from real-

izing that events in the plays

mirrored social and political

developments in the court,

something that would have

been much more apparent if

it became public knowledge

that the plays were written by a

courtier.

(Dedications, cont. from p. 19)


that events in the plays mirrored social and political developments in the court, some-thing that would have been much more apparent if it became public knowledge that the plays were written by a courtier. In particular, he would have wanted to see buried those plays that insulted members of his own family, including one in which a character resembling Cecil’s father was murdered on stage and another in which a character resembling Cecil himself was portrayed as a hunchback hated by most of the other characters. So, Cecil would have wanted the true authorship of the plays to continue to remain unknown. But would that have been enough to agree to release Southampton? Probably not enough for Cecil, a master politician, and certainly not enough for James, who had not been personally insulted by any portrayal in the plays of himself or of members of his family. Something more was needed, something weighty enough to balance the release of a prisoner convicted of treason in the most high profile uprising during Queen Elizabeth’s reign.

*** What might have come into play now is the Prince Tudor (PT) theory as put forth by Betty Sears, Bill Boyle, Hank Whittemore, Charles Beauclerk and others. According to this theory, Southampton was actually the son of Queen Elizabeth and Oxford, and thus a potential heir to the throne, something that explains the intensity of Oxford’s desire that he remain alive and thus remain a candidate to be the next king. But if this theory is true, then Southampton’s very life would have been an obstacle to the efforts to make James king of England. Assuming that the theory is true, Oxford’s and Southampton’s promise of silence about Southampton’s parentage would have indeed been a weighty matter. On the other hand, why would it matter that Southampton was a son of the Queen? Scholars have speculated that she had other sons, including Robert Devereux, the Second Earl of Essex, who were older than Southampton and thus more directly in line for the throne. If the Queen and Cecil were willing to convict and execute one of her sons – Essex – then surely they would not have balked at Southampton suffering the same fate. Furthermore, they already

had Southampton’s silence because he was in the Tower. It was Oxford’s silence they would have wanted. At this point Cecil and James might have considered assassinating Oxford, but that would have been messy because he was too high-ranked, too high-profile, too well-known. They might also have feared the unknown consequences that often result from assassinations. Far better, then, to reach a deal with him.

And a deal was possible, because, in addition to keeping silent about South-ampton’s true parentage, Oxford had one more card to play, one directly related to Southampton, that would have made Southampton’s execution and Oxford’s assassination far worse options for Cecil and James.

***

The final piece of the puzzle that, with or without the PT factor, enabled Oxford to work out a deal for Southamp-ton’s release, was the fact that Oxford had dedicated two of his poems to Southampton when they were published almost a decade earlier – Venus and Adonis in 1593, and The Rape of Lucrece in 1594. The relevance of those dedications needs some explanation. We have noted that Cecil was concerned about Oxford’s plays being performed in public and being attributed to him because authorship by a courtier would make it more likely that the public would realize the plays often portrayed people and events at the court. Espe-cially enraging would have been public awareness of the unflattering depiction of members of the Cecil family in the plays. Attributing the plays to an unknown commoner named William Shakespeare, however, made it less likely that anyone would make the connection between the plays and the court. Those who were especially discern-ing might have made the connection between Southampton and the plays by linking the Dedications by Shakespeare in the poems of 1593-1594 with the ap-pearance of the name Shakespeare on plays beginning in 1598. To most people, though, the Dedications of 1593 and 1594 did not have appear much different from other dedications that poets of lower social status wrote to patrons of higher status. But by 1601, in the very different political environment created by the Essex Rebellion and the conviction of Southamp-ton for treason because of his role in it, the connection between Southampton and the plays would have been noted. The fact that the nobleman to whom Shakespeare had dedicated the poems was not just any courtier, but was one under a sentence of execution, would now draw attention to Shakespeare. Questions were bound to be asked about just who he was and his connection to Southampton. But such scrutiny was just what the Shakespeare façade could not endure. With folks looking at the matter with new eyes, if Oxford’s authorship became known, how could it be explained

With folks looking at the mat-

ter with new eyes, if Oxford’s

authorship became known,

how could it be explained that

the premier earl in the king-

dom had used such exalted

language in public, in the Dedi-

cations, to address an earl of

lower rank and much younger

age? Indeed, he had used

language that someone of such

high rank would use only in

addressing royalty? If South-

ampton was of royal blood,

what was its source? What did

that mean for the succession

issue?



that the premier earl in the kingdom had used such exalted language in public, in the Dedications, to address an earl of lower rank and much younger age? Indeed, he had used language that someone of such high rank would use only in addressing royalty? If Southampton was of royal blood, what was its source? What did that mean for the succession issue? Even without considering the PT factor, many questions

could be raised that those favoring James as the next king would not want asked. Suddenly, the pseudonym William Shakespeare was, by itself, no longer suf-ficient to hide the connections between the plays and the court. On the contrary, in the new political environment, the pseudonym used on the plays to hide the link to the court was now the very link tying the plays to the court – through the linkage with Southampton. This development may have saved Oxford’s life, because assassinating him would not have stopped the question-ing about who Shakespeare really was.

Indeed, assassinating Oxford would have only drawn attention to him at the critical moment those questions were being asked. Thus, almost paradoxically, this bizarre situation gave Oxford the opening he needed. It gave him an issue of such weight that he could bargain successfully for Southampton’s life. Oxford could have proposed that in return for having South-ampton’s sentence commuted he would take steps to strengthen the believability that “William Shakespeare” was a real per-son, not just a name. He could imply that William Shakspere, someone with a similar name and loose ties to the theater world, was the author of the plays. He could take steps to support that idea, then persuade Shakspere to leave London for Stratford, where he would be relatively inaccessible. The process of tying Shakspere to the plays that began in 1601 perhaps did not proceed very far. It did not need to. It only needed to be strong enough to stop questions about the real identity of the author of the plays at that time by setting up an author with no known connections with the court or Southampton. The fact that years later, others, for political reasons of their own, built on this feeble beginning to further strengthen the con-nection between the name Shakespeare and the man from Stratford is not part of this story. But it is a story that, as argued here, got its start at the time of the deal between Oxford/Southampton and Cecil/James. Thus we see how those two seem-ingly innocuous Dedications to South-ampton in 1593 and 1594 became, in the new political environment, the key factor enabling Oxford to reach a deal with Cecil and James to spare Southampton’s life. Without those public Dedications by Shakespeare, no deal would have been possible because there would have been no direct linkage between the plays and Shakespeare on one hand, and the court on the other. But with that linkage, Oxford had the leverage to bargain with Cecil and James. He was able to use his diplomatic skills to persuade them that a solution with James on the throne and Southamp-ton alive was not only possible, but that the logic of the situation demanded that outcome. All he had to do to get them to accept it was to sacrifice his own name for

that of William Shakespeare as the author of his literary works. It is the business of diplomats to understand all the factors present in a given situation, to recognize that moment when the continually shifting circumstances favor his and his principal’s interests, and to seize it to fashion an agreement that binds other parties to act in ways that are in his favor. And that is what we have seen Oxford do. Acting as diplomat for himself

and Southampton, taking into account Cecil’s and James’s desire for James to become king of England, and assessing the significance of Southampton in The Tower for treason, Cecil’s desire to cut the con-nection between the court and the plays, the presence of a small-time merchant with a name similar to Shakespeare, and the fact that the Dedications publicly tied the plays to Southampton – Oxford seized the moment to persuade Cecil and James to make the deal that saved Southampton at the cost of recognition of Oxford’s author-

(Dedications, cont. from p. 21)

Suddenly, the pseudonym

William Shakespeare was,

by itself, no longer suf-

ficient to hide the connec-

tions between the plays

and the court. On the con-

trary, in the new political

environment, the pseud-

onym used on the plays to

hide the link to the court

was now the very link ty-

ing the plays to the court

– through the linkage with

Southampton.

This development may

have saved Oxford’s life....

Those two seemingly in-

nocuous Dedications to

Southampton in 1593 and

1594 became, in the new

political environment, the

key factor enabling Oxford

to reach a deal with Cecil

and James to spare South-

ampton’s life. Without

those public Dedications

by Shakespeare, no deal

would have been possible

because there would have

been no direct linkage be-

tween the plays and Shake-

speare on one hand, and

the court on the other.


ship of the plays and poems. Oxford might have thought that the mask need only be temporary, that it would last only until the deaths of himself, James and Cecil. After that, who knew what the future might bring? James might die without leaving any male heirs. Circum-stances might be right for Southampton to be crowned later, after Oxford’s death, assuming he was a son of the Queen – but only if Southampton remained alive, so his survival would have been of paramount importance at the time the deal was made. What Oxford did not foresee was the extent to which the process he set in motion would erase him not just from authorship of the literary works but almost entirely from history. He had not anticipated the thoroughness with which Cecil would carry out his part of the activity necessary to secure the Shakespeare mask onto the literary works by destroying with almost demonic zeal so much evidence of Oxford’s role in the court and his involvement in the literary life of the Elizabethan era. Nor could he have foreseen the political devel-opments in the 1620s that would lead to the deceptive statements in the First Folio that established Shakspere as the author of Oxford’s works in the public mind. But to return to the Dedications one last time – is it not appropriate that in Oxford’s life, as in his tragedies, such immense outcomes arise from such simple beginnings? The idea of Oxford as the dealmaker works even without consider-ing the PT theory. Those who doubt that Southampton was a royal prince may still conclude that Oxford renounced his literary works in order to break the con-nection between them and the court, itself a weighty enough matter to warrant that action.

* * * * *James A. Warren was a Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of State for 22 years, during which he served in public diplomacy positions at U.S. em-bassies and consulates in Bangladesh, India, Laos, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Thailand, and Vietnam. He is currently living in Bangkok, where he serves as the Regional Director for Southeast Asia for a large educational NGO based in New York.

Nashe’s introduction to Robert Greene’s Menaphon in 1589. Nashe says “. . . and if you entreate him faire on a frosty morn-ing, hee will affoord you whole Hamlets, I should say hand fuls of Tragicall speeches." The second reference to a performance of “Hamlet” occurs in June 1594 at New-ington Butts, for which Philip Henslowe’s Diary records a receipt for a single perfor-mance of Hamlet (not referred to as new) and taken to be a performance in repertory of the above -by Henslowe anyway. The third contemporary allusion to “Hamlet” was made by Thomas Lodge “in or before 1596” (Arden series) to the “ghost which cried so miserably at The Theatre like an oister-wife, ‘Hamlet, revenge.’” There was also reputedly a performance of “Hamlet” in October 1593 at the Golden Cross Inn, Oxford.

William Shakspere’s son Hamnet was born in 1585, and named after Shakspere’s friend and neighbour Hamnet Sadler. This son Hamnet died on August 11, 1596, aged eleven, well after the performances referred to above; the son’s death cannot therefore have influenced a play by this title, let alone a play already on tour. Most importantly, no scholar has succeeded in locating William Shakspere of Stratford in repertory by June 1594.

Shakspere’s will dated March 25, 1616, is also on display at the exhibition. Two transcription sheets rest on either side of the will to guide the viewer. They state that Shakspere left money to his friends, one of whom is described as “HAMLET Sadler” on the crib sheet. Closer inspection of the will however reveals that Sadler’s signature is “HAMNET” Sadler (whether written by the clerk or himself), not HAM-LET. A distinction needs to be made here, as the word “hamlettes” also appears in the same will, in this case referring to part of Shakspere’s estate.

It is important not to get our Ham-nets, Hamlets and hamlettes confused!

DORNA BEWLEY 20 Lammas Court, Grantchester Street,Cambridge, UK

Rylance to Join Shakespeare Fellowship Trustees

The world-renowned actor, Mark Rylance, has recently been elected by a unanimous vote of the board to the of-fice of Honorary Trustee of the Shake-speare Fellowship. Mark joins Sir Derek Jacobi, Michael York, Roland Emmerich, and John Orloff as honorary trustees, all elected for bringing a “special luster to the Oxfordian movement” as required in our bylaws.

Mark was Artistic Director of Shakespeare’s Globe between 1996 and 2006. A professional actor since 1980, he has acted in over 50 productions of plays by Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Mark has served as an Associate Artist of the RSC, a friend of the Francis Bacon Research Trust, President of the Mar-lowe Society, an honorary bencher of the Middle Temple Hall, and Chairman of the Shakespearean Authorship Trust (SAT), which holds annual authorship confer-ences at Shakespeare’s Globe.

His first play, The Big Secret Live “I am Shakespeare” Webcam Daytime Chatroom Show, a farcical send up of the authorship challenge, premiered in Chichester in August 2007. In accept-ing his election, Mark wrote that he was honored to become a Fellowship trustee and also that he was “determined to write more plays.” His acting achievements include two Laurence Olivier awards for best actor (1994 and 2010) and two Tony awards for best actor (2008 and 2011). Mark’s cameo performances in Anonymous and his amused discourse in Last Will.& Testament speak volumes regarding his natural talent and commit-ment to pursuing the mystery behind the Shakespeare attribution.

Second Oxfordian Edition of Mac-beth Now Available

Richard Whalen is pleased to an-nounce that his co-publisher, Llumina Press, has issued the second Oxfordian edition of Macbeth. He notes that, “In the six years since the first edition, much new material has come light and it has

(News, cont. from p. 7)

(Continued on p. 27)


Eva Turner Clark proposed that the first version of Shake-speare’s Julius Caesar dates to no later than January 1583. She wrote:

On January 6th, 1582-3, “A historie of fferrar shewed before her majestie at Wyndesor on Twelf daie at night Enacted by the Lord Chamberleynes servauntes furnished in this office with diverse new thinges as one Citty, one Battlement of canvas…. [Feuille-rat: “Documents,” p. 350] …My belief is that “fferrar” should read “Caesar.” Phonetic spelling by the recorder would make “Caesar” begin with s, or ss for a capital letter, and Henslowe’s “Diary”…shows “Caesar” spelled “Seser,” “Sesar,” “Sesear,” and “Sesor” (p. 529, 529fn).

More Evidence That Ju��us Ca�sa� dates to 1583by Robert Prechter

…marvailous strange, rare, miraculous, & wonderful permove-ments, and regrediacions, with constellations of the ayre, and watery elements, which were sometime fiery, and bloody col-loured, with streames like sharpe speares, shooting straight upward, and meeting together, (as it were) in round point, with flashes, much brightnesse, many streames, and straunge and unwonted collours of the rainebow. As also with the collour of the fire of Brimstone, and seeming as it were burning with fierye flashes and smoake. Straunge, and fearefull no doubt to the beholders, as though the gallant frame, of all the radient skie and elements, had beene even then about to be set on fire.

Shakespeare must have been quite taken with this powerful vision, as he incorporated Day’s title and terms into Act 1 scene 3,

As it happens, an obscure source that Shakespeare mined for his play dates from that same year.

Thomas Day, father of author Angell Day, was a parish clerk in London. His only publication is Wonderfull Strange Sightes seene in the Element, over the Citie of London and other Places, which describes dramatic atmospheric events occurring on September 2, 1583, between 8 p.m. and midnight. Following his account, Day issues a strident call for people to repent before God’s wrath consumes them. The first pages are in prose and ensuing ones are in verse (fourteeners). Here is Day’s descrip-tion of the event:

Thomas Day, father of author Angell

Day, was a parish clerk in London. His

only publication is Wonderfull Strange

Sightes seene in the Element, over the

Citie of London and other Places, which

describes dramatic atmospheric events

occurring on September 2, 1583, be-

tween 8 p.m. and midnight. Following

his account, Day issues a strident call

for people to repent before God’s wrath

consumes them.


of Julius Caesar, in which these exchanges occur while thunder booms and lightning flashes:

Cicero. Why, saw you any thing more wonderful?Cassius.…And the complexion of the element ...Cinna.…There’s two or three of us have seen strange sights.

Combined, the emphasized words produce “wonderful strange sights seen of the element,” a precise rendition, save for

linking them all together.

the preposition, of the opening portion of Day’s title. Typing Day’s title into Google search confirms that this conflation of words is unique to these two sources, as the two first texts displayed in the search results are Day’s and Shakespeare’s, and they are the only ones containing all the same words.

There’s more. In his description of the event, which covers only a single page of text, Day speaks of “wonderful permove-ments,” and Shakespeare’s Cicero asks, “saw you anything more wonderful?” Day writes of the “elements, which were…sometime fiery, and bloody colloured,” and Cassius speaks of “the element…Most bloody, fiery and most terrible.” Day writes of “flashes,” and Cassius remarks on “the very flash of it.” Day says the events are “Straunge, and fearefull,” and Cassius calls Caesar “fearful, as these strange eruptions are.” Day speaks of “the radient skie…about to be set on fire,” and Cicero and Casca of “this disturbed sky…a tempest dropping fire.”

It would be nearly impossible to describe a scenario in which Day adopted the language of Shakespeare; after all, he was describing an actual event. And there is no basis on which to attribute Day’s description to Shakespeare, who would not be at home with the dense religious language that precedes and follows it. So Shakespeare must have mined Day’s dramatic exposition for his play. The coincidence of verbiage supports Clark’s case that the earliest version of Julius Caesar dates to 1583.

But Feuillerat’s records indicate that A historie of sserrar was acted a few months before the atmospheric event described by Day occurred. If that play is in fact the first version of Julius Caesar, perhaps Shakespeare read Day’s book shortly thereafter and revised his play to incorporate its images in helping to set the foreboding tone of Act I. If his play was still popular a few months after its first known showing—as seems probable—it would be reasonable for him still to have been improving the language of the play. Alternatively, perhaps Feuillerat’s information refers to someone else’s production, which along with Day’s inspiring description gave Shakespeare the idea to write his own version of Caesar’s fall later that year. (Or perhaps there is an error in Feuillerat’s Documents, and A historie of sserrar, later titled Julius Caesar, was actually performed on January 6, 1583-4.)

Sometime after 1575, Oxford had employed Day’s son Angell, formerly a printer’s apprentice, as his secretary. In 1586, Angell published The English Secretorie and dedicated it to the Earl of Oxford. Many sources erroneously attribute Thomas’ publication to Angell. But the opening prose passage is signed “Thomas Day,” and the thickly religious language of the tract reflects Day’s occupation, fitting father far better than son. Taken together, our information establishes relationships between An-gell Day and Oxford, and Thomas Day and Shakespeare, thereby

It would be nearly impossible to describe

a scenario in which Day adopted the lan-

guage of Shakespeare; after all, he was

describing an actual event. And there

is no basis on which to attribute Day’s

description to Shakespeare, who would

not be at home with the dense religious

language that precedes and follows it.

So Shakespeare must have mined Day’s

dramatic exposition for his play. The

coincidence of verbiage supports Clark’s

case that the earliest version of Julius

Caesar dates to 1583. But Feuillerat’s

records indicate that A historie of sser-

rar was acted a few months before the

atmospheric event described by Day

occurred. If that play is in fact the first

version of Julius Caesar, perhaps Shake-

speare read Day’s book shortly thereafter

and revised his play to incorporate its

images in helping to set the foreboding

tone of Act I.

Sources

Clark, Eva Turner. Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare’s Plays. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1974.

Day, Thomas. Wonderfull Strange Sightes seene in the Element, over the Citie of London and other Places... London: Robert Waldegrave, [1583].

Shakespeare, William. “Julius Caesar,” Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies. London: Jaggard and Blount, 1623.


Elsinore Revisited is a labor of love by Sten Vedi, a retired Norwegian academic and University librarian, who self-published the paperback volume of less than a hundred pages. It is put together in a pleasant format that sets off the superb maps, paint-ings, and portraits that accompany the text. The pages are glossy, comparable to the National Geographic’s, and easy to turn because of their eight-and-a-half-inch square dimensions.

Polonius epithet made for smoother waters than the original character name, Corambis, a blatant parody of Burghley’s motto.

Henrik Ramel, born the same year as Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, committed at a young age to serve King Frederik II of Denmark for life. His Polish background was no indication of parochialism. He was learned in Latin, French, Italian, and German as well as the sciences. His one portrait shows the self-effacement and preoccupation of a man who had to represent a government and make it run. He had led the Danish embassy to England in 1586, extending friendly relations without offering assistance regarding the pending war with Spain.

King Frederik was a brutal libertine known for his “insolence and monstrous manners,” mirrored in Claudius, and also, Vedi suggests, in Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who displayed mur-derous treachery and vain public show. In terms of the politics of theater, Vedi felt that the real-life Polonius and Frederik were perfect foils to protect an author from objections.

Turning to the authorship issue, Vedi asks if there was a ghostwriter behind Hamlet and, by extrapolation, the rest of the Shakespeare canon? In answering it, as an amateur in the field but skilled in the necessary languages and background, he relies upon the common-sense circumstantial evidence that Ox-ford’s brother-in-law, Lord Willoughby, had served in a mission to Elsinore, and his papers and personal remembrances would have been available to Oxford. Vedi even found two previously overlooked pages of writing by Willoughby, particularly describ-ing an encounter with Polonius. He likely would have had much more to relate in conversation in a relaxed setting with Oxford, his wife’s brother.

This amount of detail about the personalities and the royal palace and proceedings was obviously not available to a rural tradesman who was eighteen in 1582, the year of Willoughby’s mission. Here Vedi assumes the deductive duties of his study. He remains sensitive throughout that, as expressed by his last words on the matter, “Until reliable documentary sources come to the surface, we have to rely on additional circumstantial evidence and accept a large degree of uncertainty about the authorship.” It is a reasonable but unremarkable conclusion, gained after pondering the logic and facts.

Vedi’s extensive bibliography might benefit from the addition of Robert Detobel’s article on authors’ rights in The Oxfordian IV (2001). Another quibble is that he initially expressed apprecia-tion for James Shapiro’s Contested Will as having “well-balanced arguments for and against the different candidates, who according to various supporters, aspire to the authorship.” This is far too generous when the cited text is presumptuous, error-filled, and in several places devious and false.

Book Review

Elsinore Revisited—‘This Ientleman of Polonia’: Polonius, A Character in Disguise’

by Sten F. Vedi, 2012, Xlibris UK, 97 pages.Reviewed by William Ray

The book’s charm and strength is introducing into the au-thorship issue, into Shakespeare studies generally, the extent of cultural, economic, and social commerce between Denmark and Elizabethan England and the cumulative effect of that commerce on the play Hamlet. Spoiler alert. There really was a Polonius, “the man from Poland” literally, who was the minister of foreign affairs to the King of Denmark. Polonius met Lord Burghley in May 1586. The dramatic Polonius proved to be all Burghley. The

Turning to the authorship issue, Vedi

asks if there was a ghostwriter behind

Hamlet and, by extrapolation, the rest of

the Shakespeare canon? In answering it,

as an amateur in the field but skilled in

the necessary languages and background,

he relies upon the common-sense circum-

stantial evidence that Oxford’s brother-

in-law, Lord Willoughby, had served in a

mission to Elsinore, and his papers and

personal remembrances would have been

available to Oxford. Vedi even found two

previously overlooked pages of writing

by Willoughby, particularly describing an

encounter with Polonius. He likely would

have had much more to relate in conver-

sation in a relaxed setting with Oxford,

his wife’s brother.

(Continued on p. 27)


Subscribe to S�ak�s��a�� Matt��s

P��as� Mak� C��cks �a�ab�� to: T�� S�ak�s��a�� F��ows��, P.O. Box 66083, Aubu�nda��, MA 02466.

Regular member:e-member ($25/year)__(Website; online newsletter)One year ($50/$70 overseas)__

Family/Institution:One year ($75)___

Patron ($100/year or over):___Total: ____

Name:_____________________________________

Address:___________________________________

City:____________________State:____ZIP:________

Phone:__________________email:________________

Check enclosed____

Signature:___________________________________

The Fellowship sincerely regrets that because of security and liability considerations, we can no longer accept credit card payments by mail. Online credit card payments are still available, from www.shake-spearefellowshiponlinestore.com, using our affiliation with PayPal.

A year ago, looking back at the 64 works they’d read in eight years, the men voted that their favorite work was Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. Dickens’ Great Expectations won second place, and Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew were highly ranked.

Each Monday session begins with a poem selected by one member. My neighbor tells me he’s constantly impressed with the insights offered by the members of the Book Club as they discuss what they’re reading (see the news note elsewhere in this issue, “Reading Shakespeare Is Good for Your Brain”).

I should also add that in 2008 my neighbor received the Volunteer of the Year Award from the prison for his work in lead-ing the Book Club. His wife leads a watercolor painting class at another Massachusetts correctional institution.

If you’re looking for a rewarding way to volunteer time, consider volunteering at a jail or prison. In most states, educa-tional and cultural programs for inmates have been eliminated or drastically cut back due to budget woes, so the efforts of vol-unteers are deeply appreciated not only by the inmates, but by correction officials as well.

It isn’t the end of the world for a neophyte to be impressed by facile authority. Much of the charm of Elsinore Revisited is the open way that Vedi grapples with the problems and contradictions of the scholarly background. One feels kinship with his efforts to cut through traditional “speculations which are repeated over and over again in the absence of critical sense,” acquiring a sheen resembling golden truth.

The modest scale, the sincerity, the quality illustrations of rarely seen Scandinavian pictorial geography make reading the book an enjoyable event. Recommended.

become much clearer how an Oxfordian edition of a Shake-speare play should be researched and put together. The Oxford-ian edition of Othello (2010) by Ren Draya and myself benefited from this learning process.”

The second edition of Macbeth has a completely new in-troduction, which is much more Oxfordian. The line notes are twice as long, with much new material. The bibliography is more complete, including citations and sources for scholars who want to pursue certain aspects. The sections on narrative sources and dating the composition of the play are revised and updated. The goal is to satisfy the Shakespeare scholar as much as possible without burdening and perhaps discouraging the general reader, for whom these editions are intended, with an obtrusive scholarly apparatus.

The second edition may be ordered online through www.llumina.com/store/macbeth.htm, by going to ‘Llumina store’ via Google, or from Amazon or B&N.

Whalen adds, “Macbeth is an incredibly great play, and even more so from an Oxfordian point of view. See what you think. These plays are not about what the Stratfordians would have us believe.”

(News, cont. from p. 23)(Elsinore Revisited, cont. from p. 26)

(From the Editor, cont. from p. 3)


2012 Shakespearean Authorship Trust................................1

A Source for ‘Remembrance of Things Past’........................1

Rudolf Steiner: Naming the Bard.........................................1

Shakespeare in Prison.........................................................3

“Shakespeare in a Year”......................................................4

I Come to Bury Shaksper....................................................17

The Southampton Dedications and the Succession..............19

Julius Caesar and the 1583 Earthquake.............................24

Elsinore Revisited...............................................................26

Inside this issue:

list of Oxford’s connections to the sources of Shakespeare’s medical knowledge must begin with Sir Thomas Smith, Oxford’s tutor and surrogate father, whose obsession with Paracelsian medicine (detailed by both his biographers) is revealed by the many books on the subject in his library (21 titles under the subhead “Medicine and Surgery”), and from letters written to his wife and the overseer of his distillery during his embassy in France. Smith was known for giving his homemade medicines to his friends, one being Oxford’s wife, Anne Cecil, in hopes of alleviating her suffering

during her first pregnancy. Smith’s library list and links to articles that describe where he appears in Shakespeare’s plays and his probable troubles with malaria can also be found at Politicworm.com.

I believe that it’s the connection between the eight years spent with Smith during his vulnerable and impressionable childhood and Smith’s main interests that most irrefutably connects Oxford to Shakespeare. What other candidate shows such an early immersion in the very subjects in which Shakespeare was so steeped that he used them as metaphors: medicine and distilling (21 titles in Smith’s

library), the Law (54 titles), astrology (45 titles), English and Roman History (115 titles), Greek literature and philosophy in Greek (42 titles), plus an aristocratic sport like hawking, which Smith confessed to Cecil was among his chief occupations during the years of Mary’s reign, the very years Oxford was with him.

Best wishes in the coming year. Keep up the good work.

Stephanie Hopkins HughesNyack, NY

Shakespeare in a Year: see “From the President, p. 4.

(Letters, cont. from p. 2)